Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Points of Order

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the second motion on the Order Paper is on Government social policies on Merseyside and stands in my name. It has been drawn to my attention that the civil servants of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales have been ordered to produce extra long briefs to ensure that he uses all the time available on the first motion on the Order Paper. It has also been drawn to my attention that the Government Whips have been active in recruiting Conservative Back-Bench Members to speak in that debate.
It is absolutely clear that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), is running away from debating the second motion. I hope that when you, Madam Speaker, observe what goes on in the Chamber this morning, you will be censorious about the Government's behaviour.

Madam Speaker: Let us continue with our proceedings and hope that we can make some progress.

Mr. Alun Michael: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. It may assist the House and you to know that, in opening the debte on the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) will have said all that there is to say on the topic within about half an hour. My hon. Friends and I intend to speak briefly, as I am sure you would desire, to ensure that there is time to debate the second motion, as my hon. Friends representing the Merseyside area wish. May I endorse the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth)? It is clear that Conservative Members have been thrown into the Chamber by the Whips, having been drawn from hither and thither, with the intention of frustrating proper debate.

Madam Speaker: I can go no further than what I have just said. We must now make progress and see how we go.

Toxic Waste Disposal (Wales)

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the import of toxic waste into Wales should cease and that the commercial trade in toxic waste should come to an end; notes that there is considerable unease among the people of South East Wales about the activities of ReChem International, Pontypool; and calls upon the Secretary of State for Wales to hold a full, independent and public inquiry into that plant.
In a sense, I am delighted that many Conservative Members are present this morning because the matter clearly concerns those hon. Members who represent areas with toxic waste incinerators, such as mine.
The motion has two aspects: first, it calls for a complete ban on the import of toxic waste into Britain; secondly, it refers to the need for an independent public inquiry into the ReChem plant at Pontypool in my constituency. The issue has been simmering for nearly two decades. My predecessor, the hon. Member for Pontypool and then for Torfaen, Mr. Leo Abse, had a great interest in the ReChem problem. Since 1987, when I became a Member of this House, I have tabled a number of early-day motions asking for an independent public inquiry into ReChem and on each occasion a clear majority of Members of Parliament representing Welsh constituencies have called for such an inquiry.
Members of the European Parliament, including my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), when he represented South East Wales, and my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith), who is still our representative in Brussels, played a sterling part in trying to ensure that European legislation covers plants such as ReChem, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent will explain later.
All the local authorities are involved, including Torfaen borough council, Gwent county council, Pontypool community council and many others, are opposed to the Government's insistence that there should be no public inquiry into ReChem. My party, including the ward party in New Inn, the constituency party in Torfaen, the Welsh council of Labour's annual conference and the national British conference of the Labour party have all expressed, through resolutions and motions, that there should be an end to the import of toxic waste and that there should be a public inquiry.
A number of pressure groups have sprung up in my constituency which are opposed to what is going on in ReChem, including Mothers and Children Against Toxic Waste, the excellent STEAM headed by David Powell and the Panteg Environmental Protection Group. All the different groups, together with the whole community, are opposed to what is going on in ReChem and are concerned about the need for a public inquiry.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: As the hon. Gentleman has the advantage of having been a Member since 1987, may I ask him whether the groups to which he has referred had the opportunity to present evidence to two Select Committees which have met since the hon. Gentleman has been a Member? Did those Select Committees come to the view that a public inquiry was necessary?

Mr. Murphy: The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs dealt with the matter in 1990. Evidence was given by those groups and by the local authorities to that Select Committee and, by way of petition, to the House.
Never was there such solidarity across party boundaries. If this morning Conservative Members seem to think that they oppose the essence of the motion, they must realise that many supporters of the Conservative party in my constituency and across Wales believe that there should be a public inquiry into ReChem. Never was that more vividly illustrated than when the Canadian imports of toxic waste coming thousands of miles across the Atlantic were sent back. When a march and demonstration was held in New Inn around the ReChem plant, all the mayors and chairmen of the local authorities, wearing their chains of office, led the way. My hon. Friends the Members for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn), and for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), myself and many thousands of people joined the march and demonstration to show that all our civic leaders, almost all our Members of Parliament and the majority of people who live in Torfaen and beyond in Gwent and south-east Wales are deeply concerned about the import of toxic waste.
Why is it that for almost 20 years, the controversy has developed? The plant was given planning permission in 1972 by Monmouthshire county council and it opened in 1974 when the regulations governing such plants were in a vacuum and, more importantly, when the company said that all it would do would be to process industrial wastes from south Wales, from the south-west of England and from the midlands. The company never mentioned that it would deal with the most deadly poison known to mankind and it was not until later that the plant decided to process polychlorinated biphenyls. That is the main reason why people are concerned about what goes on at the plant and why there should be a public inquiry.
Everyone knows that PCBs are highly dangerous and how, if they are incorrectly incinerated, handled or stored, they present a risk to all forms of life, especially human life. We also know that to get rid of PCBs, they have to be incinerated at the highest possible temperature.
One of the Opposition's first concerns is about the nature of the incinerator. We believe that the incinerator does not achieve 100 per cent. success and we do not believe that the temperature capability is adequate. We also think that the ancillary processes involved in dealing with the waste, such as taking in large transformers, draining off the PCBs and cutting up the units for incineration, present difficulties and dangers because they are dealt with in buildings with no controlled ventilation system.
The incinerator was designed in the 1960s and was built almost 20 years ago. Since that time, technology has developed apace. The incinerator does not compare favourably with incinerators on the continent. Over the years, deep unease has been expressed by those whose job it is, in Torfaen borough council and elsewhere, to monitor the impact of the incinerator and to see whether the level of PCB contamination in the area immediately around the plant is bad.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that although he is talking about the plant being many years old and as if no money has been invested in the plant since it was set up, massive sums have been invested in the plant to ensure its safety?

Mr. Murphy: That is perfectly true. The Welsh Office spent about £1 million in grants to the company so that it could do something about the stack. It is a classic example of, instead of the polluter paying, the polluted paying because the taxpayer had to fork out money for so-called "improvements" which, far from improving the plant, as far as we can tell, meant that water vapour reached the ground far more quickly than it did before, sometimes causing a fog in the roads around the incinerator which was a nuisance to residents and to travellers.

Mr. Rod Richards: The hon. Gentleman has said that the ReChem plant in his constituency is not being operated correctly and he has even said that it is being operated in a way that is dangerous to the general public. That is a serious allegation and I should like the hon. Gentleman to produce some irrefutable evidence to support that allegation.

Mr. Murphy: I did not make that allegation; I said that there was unease. I am no scientist and I have never pretended to be. However, I represent 90,000 constituents and I know that they have genuine fears which must be allayed. We are not calling for the plant to be closed down, but for an independent public inquiry. That is totally different.

Mr. Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Murphy: No, because I must finish what I am saying. I do not see why it would be so bad for Conservative Members, the company or for the toxic waste industry to support such an inquiry. I will come to that matter later.
Many of us believe that the incinerator is well past its sell-by date and that it was wrongly sited in a valley near a residential area. There is always the possibility of technical and human error and there have been a number of incidents over the years which have caused great concern. I do not intend to go into all of them, but I shall mention a few that my local authority has had to investigate.
There was an explosion which damaged the incinerator hearth and enveloped the neighbourhood in clouds of smoke. There were blow-backs through the furnace doors which resulted in PCB-contaminated aluminium foil strips being deposited in large numbers on nearby residential land. Quantities of contaminated foam from the plant's cooling towers were blown over nearby residential land. There are instances of chemical spillages in storage areas which, because the plant's management did not see fit to alert the local services, resulted in the widespread mobilisation of all emergency services as there was public disturbance about heavy odour which spread for distances of up to six miles from the ReChem incinerator. Finally. the breakdown of various elements of the gas cleaning section of the plant resulted in palls of black smoke and other chimney stack emissions.
One of the worst aspects of those incidents was that, except on one occasion, the company refused to give evidence or to hold discussions with the local authority. Yet at the same time, the company says that it wants to set up a liaison committee to smooth the path. Local residents and the local authority say—in my view, quite rightly—


that they will not take part in such a committee because the company will give no undertaking that those taking part in the deliberations will be flee from litigation in the courts.

Mr. Roger Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Torfaen borough council is under a legal obligation to set up the liaison committee and that it is a most unhelpful way of proceeding for it to decline to do so?

Mr. Murphy: No. I certainly do not. I repeat that, as long as a sword of Damocles in the form of the threat of law suits hangs over the heads of the council and local residents, it is pointless for them to serve as members of a liaison committee. The company is trigger-happy when it comes to the courts. Let me list just some of those who have been sued by ReChem simply for speaking their minds on an issue of great significance to the people of Wales: David Powell of STEAM—that case is still under investigation; the former Member of Parliament for Bootle, Mr. Allan Roberts, who was threatened with the law just months before he died; Red Dragon Radio; the Western Mail; Greenpeace; The Guardian; The Daily Star; the BBC. All of them have been taken to court for daring to express doubts about the incinerator and saying that there should be a public inquiry into what is happening at ReChem.

Mr. Roger Evans: Whereas comment in the press is open to the law of defamation simply and easily, those who participate in a properly constituted liaision committee, which it is the legal obligation of the borough council to establish under the Act, are protected properly by qualified privilege, and any litigant would have to prove actual malice. The threat or litigation is not an explanation or an excuse for Torfaen's failure.

Mr. Murphy: If ReChem could find a way of getting round qualified privilege, it would certainly do so.
All the nonsense in the courts does nothing to improve ReChem's public image. It has paralysed the media, created a climate of fear among my constituents and subverted local democracy.
Torfaen borough council is the local waste disposal authority and has within its area a plant which, over the years, has developed techniques for destroying PCBs from abroad. The authority has to spend thousands and thousands of pounds on monitoring the incinerator—at the last count, £25,000 a year. Yet the Welsh Office has given no extra help to Torfaen borough council. It has not even exempted it from the penalties to help it to monitor the plant.
Gwent county council is the local authority whose duty it is to deal with emergency plans. We all know that, like other incinerators and plants, ReChem is exempt from such an emergency plan under the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations. If fire broke out, as it did in Canada, it would lead to the wholesale contamination of land, housing and industry for years. Yet there are no emergency plan regulations to cover the area around ReChem. One of the borough councillors for the New Inn area—Councillor John Turner—has complained to the European Community with a view to ensuring that the Seveso directive, which covers similar matters, applies to the ReChem incinerator. When Gwent asked the Health

and Safety Executive for help, the HSE would do nothing, even though the law governing emergency plans did not apply to ReChem.
Another reason why there should be a public inquiry is that there is unease about the way in which the Government agencies charged with monitoring plants such as ReChem are simply not doing their job well enough.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the responsibility of the county council, in association with borough councils and the emergency services, to introduce an emergency plan for whatever emergencies may arise? I am sure that ReChem will have been taken into account by the county council; if it has not, we are talking about a failure by the county council.

Mr. Murphy: The whole point is that that the council could not do that; the law prevents it from doing so. Even when it tried to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests unofficially and draw up an emergency plan, it was given no help by the HSE.
Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution does not play a happy role in all this. I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Environmental Protection Act 1990. We repeatedly pressed the Government to give extra resources, increased funding and more people to HMIP, but they refused. HMIP simply does not have enough people to cope with problems that arise from plants such as ReChem. Moreover, they operate only during office hours. If something happens at the plant outside HMIP's office hours, nothing can be done. My constituents are constantly complaining to me about HMIP. At best, they get an answering machine message and, at worst, nothing at all. The response times are wholly inadequate. No proper control measures are available for laying down standards of PCB emissions. And will HMIP ever demand more than the company is willing to pay?

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Has not HMIP served two notices on the company in the past 12 months?

Mr. Murphy: That is exactly what I intended to say. I was concerned about the openness surrounding the two notices recently served on ReChem. Neither the local authority, which is, after all. the waste disposal authority, nor I—the local Member of Parliament—knows anything at all about why those notices were served. Something must have gone wrong. Statutory regulations must have been broken. We are told that £2·5 million has been spent on improvements to the plant. But I know, and the world knows, that those so-called improvements have been made in response to requests from HMIP. I hope that the Minister will tell us what exactly went wrong to cause HMIP to serve two notices on ReChem in my constituency.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that notification has been given by both the company and HMIP of what the £2·5 million-worth of extra investment is intended to achieve? That is in accordance with notices served by HMIP and, I understand, sent to the hon. Gentleman on 27 May 1992.

Mr. Murphy: Certainly not. We have been told only that the notices have been served. We have been told none of the details. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the details later.

Mr. Alun Michael: Considering the nature of the debate, it is most interesting that one of the major discussions on the radio this morning concerned the lack of information that is available when notices are served. That underlines the need for an inquiry of the kind for which my hon. Friend argues.

Mr. Murphy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding to my case.
The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which has already been referred to by Conservative Members, met during 1989 and reported in June 1990. On this occasion, it was charged with dealing with toxic waste disposal in Wales in general, but so important did it consider the ReChem incinerator that it prepared a separate report on what was happening at Pontypool.
The Committee acknowledged—as did the Government in their response to the report—the public concern regarding the plant. It drew attention to the under-resourcing and under-staffing of HM IP and the serious problems of unpublicised emissions into our sewerage and water systems and—most significantly and quite rightly—recommended the monitoring of PCB levels, a fact for which the Opposition were grateful to the Government. The Government accepted that, and Professor Roberts of the University of East Anglia is currently engaged in that activity. At the end of that survey, the Secretary of State for Wales will determine whether a public inquiry should be held.
On many occasions my predecessor and I have raised the issue of a public inquiry in the House and the Government have consistently said no. But following a meeting of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, even the Government realised that the weight of opinion among local people was such that a public inquiry was more than possible. I go further and claim that, because of the overwhelming case that exists, such an inquiry is inevitable.
The Select Committee acknowledged the total unsuitability of the site where ReChem now stands. The incidents to which I have referred, the doubts about the incinerator, the inadequacy of proper control and monitoring and the total lack of confidence of the people of Torfaen, New Inn and Gwent about what goes on at ReChem prompted Mr. Justice Garland in 1987, in yet another court case, to say:
The plant should be the subject of further research or public inquiry. The company and the Government have nothing to lose if such an inquiry takes place.
What is there to hide? If it is believed that the place is safe, why not hold a public inquiry? If the inquiry finds that all is well, that will be the end of the story. But if it finds that all is not well, it will have been worth while from the start.
Public confidence in the plant is further eroded by the other matter that is before the House, which is the increasing number of PCBs and other toxic wastes that are imported into this country and particularly into my constituency. About 16 per cent. of all toxic wastes that come into the United Kingdom end up in Pontypool. That is possibly 500 tonnes of PCBs every month. About 95 per cent. of those toxic wastes that come to Pontypool to be dealt with originate in Europe. All the rubbish that we have been told about the way in which the incinerator deals with wastes from undeveloped countries is shown to be completely untrue by the figures and places from where the waste emanates.
Spain and Italy top the list, and the others include Australia, Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Iceland, Germany, Holland, Norway, Portugal, Switzerland and Austria. They are not undeveloped or third-world countries. Indeed, some are wealthier than Britain, and they are certainly capable—because they have the technology and wealth—of building their own incinerators.
The toxic wastes come through 17 ports in the United Kingdom, including Immingham, Harwich, Newport, Felixstowe, Ramsgate, Holyhead, Seaforth, Liverpool and Hull. It all goes against the basic idea, which even the present Government accept, that every developed country should deal with the disposal of its own toxic waste. That is why the Basle convention preamble says that hazardous wastes should be disposed of in the states where they were generated.
The whole international trade in toxic waste is a disgrace to modern society and the brokers who engage in that murky and sinister trade must accept that, as a result of their activities, the poisons, the worst known to man, come to my constituency to be disposed of. Pontypool—indeed, Wales as a whole—is fast becoming the dustbin for the world's worst poisons.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman said in his speech—

Mr. Murphy: I was giving way to the hon. Gentleman. I have more to say.

Mr. Sweeney: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was resuming his seat. Does he accept that over half the highly toxic waste produced in Wales goes to England? Is not it a fact that pollution is no respecter of national boundaries?

Mr. Murphy: That is not the point. I am talking about the import of PCBs and I have not mentioned industrial waste. Those PCBs come across the world to Wales. It is a totally different issue. I apologise if I gave the impression that I had concluded my speech, and I hope to continue to be as effective in the rest of my remarks as I have been so far.
The House should be aware that so many PCBs are coming to Wales—causing such controversy—to be generated that ReChem makes a great deal of money from processing PCBs. Most of ReChem's profits come from dealing with the waste that no other country is prepared to handle. So the company trawls the world, and in recent days reported profits down to just under £10 million. As a percentage of turnover, ReChem is one of the United Kingdom's most profitable businesses.
The company was originally owned by British Electric Traction. There was a management buy-out in 1985 and it was taken over by Shanks and McEwan. At that time, the then chairman, Richard Biffa, and managing director, Malcolm Lee, jointly owned 42 per cent. of ReChem. When that merger took place, Mr. Biffa collected £10 million and Mr. Lee £24 million worth of shares. That gives the House an idea of the money that is to be made from processing poisons.
No wonder there has been a public outcry, as more and more imports flood into my valley. The latest, from Western Australia, the Government rightly stopped. So that did not come here. Canadian waste was sent back, and it is interesting to note that even the community concerned in Canada, which experienced the fire that received


publicity at the time—was not responsible: the Government of Quebec had forwarded the material and the mayor of the town, St. Basile-le-Grand, said:
In returning the waste to Canada, you gave us a gift—the gift of awareness.
The world is becoming impatient with threats to the environment and with thousands of tonnes of deadly poisons travelling by rail, sea and land. That is why Britain should use its presidency of the European Community to strengthen, not weaken, legislation on these issues. We must not agree to bilateral arrangements. We should give a lead to the world in the coming months. The British Government should work to achieve a total ban on toxic waste imports and an end to the commercial trade in those poisons. They should ask Belgium and Sweden why they are still sending wastes to us when they said that they would stop doing so. They should end the burning of chlorinated solids at the plant and extend the emergency plan regulations to plants such as ReChem.
The Government should compensate my local authority for the unique and enormous cost of monitoring ReChem, send in the Department of Health to survey the health of the local population, ensure that plants such as ReChem are never again built close to residential areas and, above all, have the courage today to announce a full-scale independent public inquiry into the ReChem plant at Pontypool, not just for the sake of the future of my constituents, but for the sake of the future.

Mr. Roger Evans: The ReChem plant is in the portion of Torfaen represented by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), but it is just on the borders of his constituency, and that part of Torfaen which I represent, and the part of Monmouth borough which I represent, is at least as directly affected by the operations of the plant as is his constituency.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that I share wholeheartedly, and welcome, the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed. There is undoubtedly, as one speaks to constituents on the doorstep and at farm gates in the area—it is on the verge of an extremely beautiful tract of countryside—grave concern about the operations of the plant.
The difficulty that the hon. Member for Torfaen and I face is that hard evidence that the operations are dangerous has been extraordinarily difficult to come by. Indeed, we face in expressing concern on the issue a number of conclusions made by various bodies which are disbelieving of the concern which our constituents firmly express.
For example, the second report of the Environment Select Committee concluded that high temperature incineration was a safe and effective way of disposing of combustible wastes. The pollution inspectorate believes it to be the best and most practical way of dealing with these dangerous substances. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that David Wheeler, ReChem's operations director, can put it in an attractive way, on the face of it, that he and ReChem are on the side of the angels because they destroy these dangerous chemicals rather than permitting them to pollute the environment.
The problem facing the hon. Member for Torfaen and myself, and our constituents, is that a great body of opinion believes that the plant is safe, which is why Torfaen borough council has failed in litigation to have it

closed down. It has been extremely difficult to prove the danger. No more than the hon. Member for Torfaen do I pretend to be a scientist. I have been around the plant. I do not pretend to be an expert in its operations, but the difficulty and doubt appear to arise from the lack of a method of continuously monitoring all the unburnt and newly formed chemicals and metals that emerge in the stack gases. In other words, no system is 100 per cent. accurate in identifying what goes out of the top of the stack.
In fairness to ReChem, I should say that from my visit to the plant, I know that it has a sophisticated scientific system of monitoring what comes out, but it gives only a statistical sample. Like public opinion polls, the British public and my constituents are not necessarily impressed by such statistical analysis.
We want to know whether the process is safe or whether it is simply a scheme for defusing partly disposed of matter over the constituency of the hon. Member for Torfaen, over mine and no doubt further throughout south-east Wales. How will we find out? That is the issue that the hon. Gentleman's motion addresses, and I share and welcome his concern.
Forty years ago, scientists were perceived to be infallible and beyond criticism. I remember being taken to Mamhilad in the 1950s and shown what was then a wonder of the world—the British Nylon Spinners tower, which is now a monument of industrial archaeology as much as an 18th century shop tower in Southwark. It was placed there, Madam Speaker, because it was an area—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. The hon. Gentleman has been very kind in elevating me, but I am a Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Evans: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
British Nylon Spinners deliberately constructed its plant in the area because of the lack of pollution. Ever since, as we have seen in a number of respects, doubt has been expressed about whether scientists can be relied on to get these things right. The difficulty, as the hon. Member for Torfaen said, is that it is a matter of democracy. There is a great feeling in our area that, what was given planning permission in 1972 and began operations in 1974, has become very different from what everybody expected long ago. The feeling that there is somehow an absolute right to go on operating a plant unless and until somebody can close it down by hard evidence in a High Court action is not acceptable to our constituents, who want to be reassured now that it is safe to live close to the plant.
The hon. Member for Torfaen and I are not scientists and neither are the bulk of our constituents, but we appreciate that these substances are highly dangerous. I suspect that he and I take the simple view, which is shared by our constituents, that the plant should not operate unless the evidence that it is safe is absolutely overwhelming. We are not prepared to take a risk. It may have been established, so far, that that risk, scientifically, is very small, but that argument is not attractive to our constituents, who take the view that there should be no risk at all.
Where do we go from here? The only part of the motion where I part company with the hon. Member for Torfaen is the call for a public inquiry now. There may be a powerful argument for one at the end of the year, but the Government, particularly the Welsh Office, have realised


and appreciated the concern in this area of Wales and have acted. The first and most important matter is Professor Lewis Roberts's inquiries, with the University of East Anglia, into whether any PCBs can be found in the environment of the plant and around our constituencies. That inquiry is of the highest importance. It will be a full, independent scientific inquiry, in which I suspect we can all properly have great confidence. If that inquiry finds the hard evidence that has eluded Torfaen borough council, it will be a most important step forward. If it concludes that nothing is awry, it will be some assurance to our constituents. I am content for an independent body of scientific experts to report on those highly technical scientific matters and I welcome the Government's initiative. That is the first thing that the Government have done.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the reasons why the present survey is being conducted is because many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed much disquiet about the operation of the plant? The initiative did not come from the Welsh Office. It responded to the protests and representations that were made in this place.

Mr. Evans: I respectfully agree that there has been a mounting accumulation of protest, to which, I am glad to say, the Welsh Office has responded. I gladly welcome the fact that Members representing a variety of constituencies have done their duty by raising the issue.
The second thing that the Government have done that goes beyond the Welsh Office—this goes to the crux of the democratic argument that the hon. Member for Torfaen mentioned—is to introduce the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The tradition has been that a company can carry out any process if it has planning permission, unless and until somebody goes to the trouble and difficulty of proving that it is so dangerous that it should be closed down. That tradition prevailed in an era of high innocence, well before the development of highly dangerous industrial processes. The Environmental Protection Act reverses that burden.
The second reason why the call for a public inquiry may be premature is that from the end of this year ReChem will require a licence from Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution under the 1990 Act to continue its operations. At the end of the year. it will he a matter of much concern whether that licence is granted or withheld.
The House would be particularly grateful to know whether Professor Lewis Roberts's report is expected to become available to the Welsh Office before the decision is taken on whether to grant a licence under the 1990 Act. I see heads shaking. It is an important matter and we all want an answer on it.
In conclusion, there is concern that so far there has been precious little hard evidence that this process is dangerous. The plant is carefully monitored, but some of us worry whether that monitoring is acceptable to our constituents. That is not what we hear on the doorsteps. We want Professor Lewis Roberts's team to report as early as possible and the most careful consideration on the decision to grant or withhold the licence at the end of the year.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Llew Smith.

Mr. Llew Smith: If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will give you nine out of 10 for that pronunciation. It was an excellent attempt.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is my pleasure to try and learn the correct pronunciation.

Mr. Smith: You have already shown, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are an excellent student.
First, I support the demand of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for an end to the commercial trade in toxic waste. Countries should stop using the United Kingdom as the toxic dustbin of the world. Each country should be responsible for its own waste. That is not a nationalistic demand; it is a demand for responsible government. Governments should not allow goods to be produced if they do not have the willingness and capability to deal with those goods safely at the end of their natural life.
Unfortunately, Governments and companies have abdicated that responsibility by dumping their waste problems on our communities. They have also been told that ReChem in the United Kingdom has the expertise to deal with the world's waste. I shall show in this debate that that is not so and that, indeed, ReChem has been involved in a massive cover-up to prevent the truth from being told. Today I will tell the truth because of evidence that has come into my possession in recent years. Much of the evidence will be technical and statistical. The House will appreciate that for the truth to be told and for previously unpublished statistics to be explained it is necessary to quote extensively from detailed information.
On 13 September 1938 Alex Falconer, Member of the European Parliament, and I brought to the attention of the EP correspondence between Michael Sanger, head of ReChem's special operations unit, and the then managing director, Malcolm Lee. The correspondence showed that on 12 February 1987, Michael Sanger took a sample of dust from the window ledge of his office at the Pontypool site which was later analysed by the Harwell laboratories. The test showed levels of contamination by PCBs and even more toxic deliverants, dioxins and furans, which were high compared with the levels recommended by the established Californian guidelines.
I want to emphasise that I did not choose the so-called Californian guidelines; they were chosen by ReChem as the most appropriate measuring rod of contamination. Surprise, surprise, after the Californian guidelines had proved high levels of contamination in the ReChem plant. Malcolm Lee all of a sudden began to question the extent to which those guidelines had been used elsewhere. Yet a further document that has come into my possession shows that the Californian guidelines continued to be used for work carried out in establishments, such as the Port of Bristol authority.
On 1 April 1987 the scientist, Michael Sanger, reported his findings to Malcolm Lee, who arranged for further samples to be taken at various locations on the Pontypool site. On 3 April 1987, 10 samples were taken and an 11th was taken at about the same time. They, too, were analysed by Harwell. Four months later, when Mr. Sanger requested the results of the tests, he received a trite, incomplete reply. No relevant test results were given in the reply, although there was an assurance that the checks showed that the position was entirely safe.
During a flurry of media activity which followed the revelations of the memo to the European Parliament, ReChem's Dr. Peter Jones was asked on television about the high levels of contamination. When asked whether he had an answer at that stage, he replied, "Yes I do—faulty arithmetic." When asked about revealing the facts, he answered, "Certainly the data have been published," and during the same interview, he said, guess in Chemosphere." In a newspaper report, ReChem's defence of the allegations included the explanation that fundamental mistakes were made in that particular analysis and a second set of test results had cleared the plant. However, two days later ReChem admitted that there was some truth in the allegation of high levels of contamination, but dismissed its significance without stating the facts of the contamination.
Furthermore, in conducting those inquiries it became obvious that the results had not been published in Chemosphere. In responding to my request for a copy of the article that was supposed to include those test results, ReChem deliberately tried to deceive me by providing me with another article and an entirely different set of test results. It was not until the intervention and on the insistence of Fred Higgs, the national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union, that I was provided with the test results. I pay tribute to him. Not only has he campaigned over the years for freedom of information but, unlike others, he insisted on this right although his own union members were involved.
I can now reveal to the House that those results had been leaked to me by another source some years earlier. That is why I knew that the information with which the company provided me was false. I knew that they were a completely different set of results. Nevertheless, I required that information from the company to confirm that the results leaked to me were correct and to highlight the extent to which ReChem would go to prevent the general public from knowing the true level of contamination at the Pontypool site.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: In view of the hon. Gentleman's revelations today, and bearing in mind his position as an MEP for this area when the Welsh Affairs Select Committee held its inquiry into ReChem, did he draw these facts to the attention of the Select Committee?

Mr. Smith: As the hon. Gentleman will find out, I did not receive confirmation of the results until after the Welsh Affairs Select Committee briefing.
The contamination of extremely toxic chemicals included dioxins, the very type of deadly poisons that caused the disastrous contamination at Seveso in Italy and by Agent Orange in Vietnam as a result of American action.
Before commenting on the 1987 test results, I shall briefly explain the significance of the Californian guidelines. When dealing with the disastrous contamination of a large building nine years ago, the California state authorities sought the advice of a team of scientists who studied all the data available to them on the toxicity of those chemicals. It derived maximum acceptable values or limits for surface contamination to take into account the risks of absorption and ingestion and, secondly, for airborne contamination to take into account the risk of breathing in contamination. It established standards for places where there was no restriction on who went there

and for how long, as well as for restricted access areas where only persons wearing protective gear were allowed for limited periods. Surprisingly, the Health and Safety Executive confirmed as recently as this week that it still has no standards for surface contamination by polychlorinated biphenyls or for other and more toxic chemicals associated with PCBs.
If I may comment on a few of the 1987 test results, on a window ledge near ReChem's incinerator there was dioxin contamination at a level more than 2,000 times higher than the Californian guidelines for regular exposure—2378 TCDD, at 8 micrograms/sq m. Another example was taken from above a door at the entrance to a reception area that is open to the general public.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman quotes statistics and seems to claim that they are significant, in which case will he please tell the House what the confidence intervals of those statistics are so that we may know exactly %n hat their significance is?

Mr. Smith: The statistics were provided by ReChem, through the good offices of the full-time national officer, Fred Higgs. Secondly, the Californian guidelines can be seen in back copies of Chemosphere. If we relate one se: of statistics to another, we can come to a conclusion as to the levels of contamination that are being exceeded.

Mr. Richards: Let me make myself clear, so that the hon. Gentleman understands the question. Are the statistics that you are quoting significant at a 95 per cent. confidence level or a 99 per cent. confidence level? How confident, statistically speaking, are you of the figure that you are quoting?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry, but I am not involved in this. The hon. Gentleman needs the third person singular.

Mr. Richards: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker. My question to the hon. Gentleman is how confident, statistically speaking, is he of the figures that he is quoting? Can we have 95 per cent., 99 per cent. or 99.9 per cent. confidence in them? Unless the hon. Gentleman can give us the confidence interval of the figures and statistics that he quotes, they are worthless.

Mr. Smith: I was not trained as a scientist, but I suspect that there is no scientific measurement of confidence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now explain it. I shall be willing to sit back, relax and listen to his explanation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: One thing is certain. I am prepared to put more confidence in what my hon. Friend says about the pollution statistics in Wales than I am in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's figures. He gets them wrong almost every day of the week. My hon. Friend is on to a very important issue. When we said that the River Doe Lea in Bolsover was a thousand times above the safety level, they told us that we were wrong and that they had no confidence in our statistics. Coalite is now pouring out dioxin. It said the same about the farmers who complained. After 12 months, that dioxin has not been removed from the land. I will tell you what: you in Wales stick to your guns. You can bet you bottom dollar that you are on the right course.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing me.

Mr. Skinner: And I agree with your statistics as well. Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Paul Flynn: We are used to hearing entirely new concepts from the Conservative party. The idea that confidence, which is very much a subjective matter, can be measured scientifically is nonsense. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) mentioned the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We heard something equally bizarre some time ago. In desperation, the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to optimism rising. When he was asked what sort of optimism it was, it was seasonally adjusted optimism—as big a nonsense as scientific confidence.

Mr. Smith: I have learnt many things this morning, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of them being that you are both an expert linguist and a statistician. My congratulations.
Because the statistics are important, I shall repeat them. I am sure that hon. Members wish to sit back, relax and listen. The first set of statistics, I repeat, relates to a window ledge near ReChem's incinerator. There was dioxin contamination at a level more than 2,000 times higher than the Californian guidelines for regular exposure. The 2378 TCDD alone was 8 micrograms/sq m. Another example relates to what was found above a door at the entrance to a reception area open to the general public. Dioxin contamination was found there, at a level more than 2,000 times higher than the Californian guidelines—again 2378 TCDD at 8·4 micrograms/sq m. Another example relates to the soil at the ReChem site. There was PCB contamination higher than the company itself had found elsewhere in Wales, at 3,800 parts per billion. That was adjacent to an area of free access. I repeat that those are just a few of the test results that I have in my possession.
Some people would say that one swallow does not make a summer and that one set of test results does not add up to a continuing problem, so enter the flight of swallows in the form of tests conducted by the Health and Safety Executive from samples taken in December 1989.
Once again, the test results had been kept secret. Once again the company failed to provide me with this information, even though I had requested it over a long period. Once again it was Mr. Higgs who intervened and insisted that I received it.
If I may comment on the Health and Safety Executive results, those surface-wide tests were apparently not carried out in working areas where high contamination might be expected and where special clothing and other protective measures might be required. The following are typical examples. The kettle in the rest room, presumably used for brewing up during the shift break, was found to be 29 times above the recommended limit. On the telephone in the office, the dialling bottoms of the handset, hardly likely to be handled except Frith PVC gloves, were found to be PCB-contaminated 42 times above what the guidelines said was an acceptable level in any office. There is a door from the open air into a corridor that leads to the office and rest room. The handle on the outside of the door, exposed to the cleansing action of wind and rain, was contaminated by PCBs to a level 120 times above the figure recommended in the guidelines.
The contamination on the sweatband of an operator's safety helmet was found to be 400 times above the limit

recommended in the guidelines for office furniture. One can imagine the risk to an operator with a sweatband, in direct contact with his head throughout shift after shift, contaminated 400 times above the limit for a desk on which a typist may occasionally lean her bare elbows. Although the California guidelines were not intended to be applied to clothing, the fact that an operator's cotton overalls were contaminated to a level several times, perhaps more than 10 times, above the limit recommended for surfaces in a restricted area, must be a cause for concern.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: When did the hon. Gentleman become aware of the Health and Safety Executive's information? He mentioned earlier that he was not aware of it at the time that the Welsh Select Committee was sitting.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the general public have few rights when it comes to accessing information. I became aware that tests had been made by the Health and Safety Executive and approached the company for information. It failed to provide it, so I contacted the responsible national officer of the Transport and General Workers Union—who provided me with the information in question a little while hack. We have since linked those test results to the California guidelines and reached the conclusion that I explained to the House earlier.

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman used the words "a little while back". How long ago was "a little while back"? Given the unease that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) expressed on behalf of the local community, which is shared by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), perhaps the hon. Gentleman can be a little more specific.

Mr. Smith: Unfortunately, I cannot he more specific now—but when this debate ends, or in the days that follow, I shall provide the hon. Gentleman with the time and date on which I received the information from the TGWU national officer. There is no problem about that.
Lest anyone should suggest that the company will repent and claim that the problem is isolated to internal housekeeping, it ought to be realised that much of the contamination was free to move as airborne vapour or particles. The ReChem site is surrounded by a wire-mesh fence. PCBs and dioxins are not put oft by a wire fence—in the same way that radiation from Chernobyl was not deterred by national borders marked on maps of Europe.
During the years in question. local soil, grass and duck eggs began to show high levels of contamination. Last year, another flock of swallows brought more knowledge. A study commissioned by the Welsh Office and undertaken by the university of East Anglia concluded:
PCB concentrations at Pontyfelin have on occasions been affected by on-site activity at ReChem.
Surprise, surprise—ReChem denies having anything to do with surrounding environmental contamination as vigorously as it denied the 1987 site contamination.
It requires little imagination to gain the impression that some of the foreign poisons of which Britain is said to be disposing at Pontypool are finding their way into our homes, our gardens, our bodies and the bodies of our children. The lesson is clear. We should no longer rely on the absence of evidence and on evidence of absence—especially when health and safety are involved.
I ask the House to support demands that the test results that I mentioned and others in my possession form the basis of the first report of the Welsh Select Committee or the Select Committee on the Environment—before which people such as Michael Sanger and Malcolm Lee ought to be called to give evidence. Mr. Sanger should be asked, for example, why on 12 February 1987 he decided to take a dust sample. Was it because he had time to spare or because something had gone dramatically wrong with the plant's operation? I suspect that it was the latter. In my opinion, Mr. Sanger has behaved honourably—unlike Mr. Lee, who should be asked why for many years he denied me access to the 1987 test results and provided only unrelated results.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has tabled this motion not as part of a vendetta against the company but because he cares for the community that he represents and for the health and safety of the plant's employees. He also recognises that we do not own this Earth of ours but are merely guardians. As guardians, an obligation is placed on each and every one of us to ensure that we defend that which is good and that of which we are justifiably proud. We do that to ensure that our children can enjoy this planet as we have enjoyed and continue to enjoy it. That is the purpose of this debate and why the commercial trade in toxic waste must come to an end. It puts at risk so much that we cherish on this planet.

Mr. Rod Richards: The significance of environmental considerations and concerns in the 1990s is widely recognised on this side of the House—and has been for a long time. I am the first to accept that the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and my hon. Friend for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) are concerned about the environment in and around their constituencies. I draw attention to a fundamental flaw in Labour's environmental policies, notwithstanding that I acknowledge the hon. Member for Torfaen's concern.
That flaw is not so much the persecution of ReChem of which the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) made mention, but that Labour's attitude to toxic waste is not altogether honest. I refer in particular to Labour's kith and kin in the eastern bloc, who have been polluting their environment for many years without a word of protest being heard from Labour. Suddenly, after a management takeover in 1985, the Opposition—

Dr. Kim Howells: This is supposed to be a serious debate concerning the lives of people in Wales. It should not be the target of cheap-crack attacks that have no basis in truth. Why not get on with it?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that remark was not addressed to me.

Dr. Howells: I meant to say that the hon. Gentleman should get on with debating Wales.

Mr. Richards: I am perfectly entitled to make such observations. The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke about the profits made by ReChem and the operators of similar plants in other parts of the world. It occurs to me that environmental factors are not the only considerations that motivate Labour.

Mr. Michael: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Clwyd,

North-West (Mr. Richards) to make the scurrilous attack that he did? Would we be in order if we made parallel remarks associating Conservative Members with fascism?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have not heard anything scurrilous so far. If I were to find debates of this sort scurrilous, I doubt that they would continue.

Mr. Richards: The reference to profits appeared to be a philosophical socialist attack on companies that make them. The record of companies these days is far better than Labour is prepared to recognise. I draw the attention of the House to Hamilton Oil Company, which recently applied for permission to develop gas and oil reserves off the north Wales coast. Hamilton Oil is—

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have just been re-reading the motion and it is clear that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) is filibustering. His speech has nothing whatsoever to do with the motion and it is clear that what I said in the point of order that I raised earlier—that Conservative Members have been organised by their Whip to make sure that we do not get on to the second motion—is exactly what the hon. Gentleman is up to. He should stick to the motion or shut up.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is for me to decide. I usually allow a certain latitude if people want to make passing references or comparisons. What is not acceptable is when they go off the subject altogether. The hon. Member for Clywd, North-West (Mr. Richards) has not transgressed in that way yet.

Mr. Richards: The environment transcends the specific argument put by the hon. Member for Torfaen. What is important is the companies and the way that they approach the environment in this day and age. I have been greatly impressed by the way that companies such as Hamilton Oil have approached the environmental considerations and factors, where they wish to operate a plant. Let me briefly outline how a company such as Hamilton Oil approaches these matters and the policies that they adopt.

Mr. Michael: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would pay attention to the reason why Opposition Members, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), have asked for a debate. It is because of the importance of the disposal of toxic waste in Wales. The way in which companies operate is not a matter for the debate. We are considering public policy, information for the public and the need for a public inquiry. It is outrageous of the hon. Gentleman to introduce extraneous topics into such a serious debate.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Torfaen attacked the ReChem company because it made profits. The case, as presented by the Labour party thus far in, the debate, is not entirely honest. It is an attack on companies generally.

Mr. Murphy: May I make it perfectly clear to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have only one speaker at a time, because otherwise the debate becomes disorderly.

Mr. Murphy: I should like to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that when I referred to the


profits of ReChem, I was merely pointing out that there had been a change in the way in which the company operated in that, because it has dealt with PCBs in recent years, it made a profit. I am neither for nor against the profit; I am merely using it as an example of how the nature of the company has changed. It is more profitable with PCBs.

Mr. Richards: With respect, the hon. Gentleman referred not only to profits but to the remuneration of directors in the form of shares and so on. The implication was that companies such as ReChem have no concern for the environment. I wish to draw the attention of the House to a brief policy document issued by Hamilton Oil, just to give an example of how a company—

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Hamilton Oil has nothing to do with toxic waste, and still less to do with Pontypool.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West must he allowed to go a little further so that I can see whether he makes points that relate to the motion.

Mr. Richards: I am grateful, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that our debate this morning is important not simply because we are discussing the ReChem plant in Pontypool, although most of the debate will concentrate on that? ReChem also has plants in Ellesmere Port and Southampton. The environment, which is what we are talking about, has implications for waste disposal units throughout Britain and Europe. The very fact that my hon. Friend—

Mr. George Howarth: Has the hon. Gentleman read the motion?

Mr. Nigel Evans: Yes I have. The very fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) spoke about eastern bloc countries is a recognition of the fact that there are no longer boundaries between Europe and the rest of the world or a boundary between—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will know already that I look askance at interventions that become speeches. Will Mr. Richards please continue?

Mr. Richards: What I mean will become clear as I progress.
The Hamilton Oil company says that it will:
comply with all applicable laws, regulations and standards, uphold the spirit of the law; and where laws do not adequately protect the environment, apply standards that minimise any adverse environmental impact resulting from its operations; communicate openly with government. the community and industry on environmental issues. and contribute to the development of policies, legislation and regulations that may effect Hamilton;
ensure that its employees, suppliers and contractor services are informed about this policy and are aware of their environmental responsibilities in relation to Hamilton business;
ensure that it has management systems to identify, control and monitor environmental risks arising from its operation.
The Government have an extremely good record on the environment. They have acted in a responsible manner and have been a world leader in environmental factors.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have been listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, but he is now, rather than making a passing reference, going rather wide of the motion. Therefore, I must ask him to address his remarks more closely to it.

Mr. Richards: In that case, I will refer directly to what my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside said on 15 May this year in response to a question by the hon. Member for Ceridigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis). When asked about Government policy on hazardous waste, my hon. Friend said:
Negotiations are in progress on a draft regulation on the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community. The regulations will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Basel convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The Government believe that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in final disposal of waste, but that imports of hazardous wastes should continue from developing countries that are unable to deal safely with such wastes. The Government consider that international movements of waste for recovery should continue subject to appropriate environmental controls, such as those included in the recent decision by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on the control of transfrontier movements of waste destined for recovery operations".—[Official Report, 15 May 1992; Vol. 207. c. 234.]
I wholeheartedly support that statement from my hon. Friend.
It is worth reminding the Opposition what the principal features of the Basle convention are. I have a summary of the convention, which says:
A signatory state cannot send hazardous waste to another signatory state that bans the import of it.
The summary also states:
A signatory state cannot ship hazardous waste to any country that has not signed the treaty",
and says:
Every country has the sovereign right to refuse to accept a shipment of hazardous waste",
and that
Before an exporting country can start a shipment on its way, it must have the importing country's consent, in writing. The exporting country must first provide detailed information on the intended export to the importing country to allow it to assess the risks … No signatory country may ship hazardous waste to another signatory state if the importing country does not have the facilities to dispose of the waste in an environmentally sound manner … When an importing country proves unable to dispose of legally imported waste in an environmentally acceptable way, then the exporting state has a duty either to take it back or to find some other way of disposing of it in an environmentally sound manner".
The convention also states—

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At 9.30 this morning, at the beginning of the debate, I drew the attention of Madam Speaker, who was in the Chair at the time, to the fact that the Government had arranged for a filibuster throughout the debate to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and myself from reaching the second and third motions on the order paper. My hon. Friend and I have secured the co-operation of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), and of our Front Bench, yet it is becoming increasingly obvious that Conservative Members, especially the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) are simply reading out long conventions and bits of paper that have been put into their hands—the hon. Gentleman does


not even understand what he is reading. This is more evidence that the Government are running away from the prospect of facing Merseyside.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I was present in the Chamber when the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) made his original point of order, and it was clear from what Madam Speaker said that this is not a matter for the Chair unless the actual speeches made are not relevant or germane to the debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to be the judge of that.

Mr. Michael: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Surely, for the sake of the good reputation of the House, it should be publicly known that it is Conservative Members and their Whips who are orchestrating an attempt to stop a debate about Merseyside, and that there is no lack of co-operation for that debate among Labour Members.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. If these are points of order they can he made only on relevant matters for the Chair.

Mr. Richards: May I remind Labour Members what the motion actually says? It says that there is considerable—

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Richards: It says that there is considerable—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. When an hon. Member raises a point of order the hon. Member who is speaking must sit down.

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I make my point of order with many apologies—it will take no more than a minute—and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will get his debate. I ask you for guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have heard the latest news about the military involvement of the Western European Union, which includes Britain, in what was Yugoslavia. There is great anxiety about the prospect of Britain's becoming more involved in the civil war there, and as no statement has been made today, although the matter was raised yesterday by several hon. Members, could you, Madam Deputy Speaker, give me guidance as to how we can persuade a Minister to come to the House, if not today, at the earliest opportunity, so that we may debate the matter before the House rises for the long summer recess? I ask you to bear in mind that it would be most unfortunate if this country's involvement were to escalate during the recess without hon. Members being able to question Ministers, if the House were not recalled. Many of us are very concerned.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the lion. Gentleman's concern, but he will be aware that this is not a matter on which the Chair can intervene. He has made his point, and representatives of Ministers are here and will be aware of his anxiety. I am afraid that I cannot take the matter further than that.

Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have waited until 11 o'clock, when it is traditional on a Friday for points of order and statements to be made, and I wonder whether you have had notice

that the Home Secretary will make a statement about the decision of the European Court on Sunday trading. Since a statement was made in the press I have waited and hoped. Is there no way in which Members of Parliament can learn what the Government intend to do about the decision in Europe? Will a statement be forthcoming this morning? If not, will you, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursue through the channels that Madam Speaker would normally use, the question whether the Government intend to make a statement about their intention to change the law in any way—in particular the Shops Act 1950?
I declare a personal interest in that a private Member's Bill of mine was in the ballot and is due for its Second Reading on 26 January next year. One would expect that by now the Home Secretary would have declared his intentions to the House instead of feeding information to the press and the other media, whose record has been one of distorting the whole concept of the Shops Act—and, indeed, the proposals that I have presented to the House in my Bill.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have noticed an increasing number of inquiries as to whether the Government have asked to make a statement. Hon. Members can take it that if there is no announcement on the annunciator on the morning in question, no such request has been made. I am sure that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has been in the House long enough and is ingenious enough to find a number of ways in which to raise the matter which interests him.

Mr. Richards: I remind Labour Members what the motion before the House actually says. It says that the House
notes that there is considerable unease among the people of South East Wales".
There is unease among some people in Wales and elsewhere, and one reason for that is that irresponsible politicians quote statistics without sources and without confidence. I am trying, in quoting from the—

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the House what statistics I quoted without giving a source?

Mr. Richards: The hon. Gentleman said that the statistics that he cited were of Canadian origin, but I do not recall his saying specifically who had compiled, collated and analysed the figures to produce the statistics, which he could not support with any statistical degree of confidence.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Richards: No, I shall not give way.
I submit that those statistics are worthless. In order to reassure people who feel uneasy I am quoting briefly from the Basle convention on the control of transboundary movements of hazardous wastes and their disposal. As I was saying:
Shipments of hazardous waste must be packaged, labelled and transported in conformity with generally accepted and recognised international rules and standards … 
Bilateral agreements may be made by signatory states with each other and with a non-signatory country, but these agreements must conform to the terms of the Basel treaty and be no less environmentally sound … 
Since the authorities of many countries, especially developing ones, frequently do not have the trained specialists and technical know-how to assess information concerning hazardous waste and to handle it efficiently, the treaty calls


for international co-operation involving, among other things, the training of technicians, the exchange of information, and the transfer of technology.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman has referred to degrees of confidence in statistics. I have been listening carefully to what he has been saying and have been trying to decide whether I have any confidence in his knowledge of what he is talking about. I have now decided that I have no confidence that he has any knowledge of what he is talking about. There are degrees of confidence in statistics because a particular statistic may be within the normal and expected variation. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) referred to levels of dioxin 2,000 times higher than the California guidelines in a particular sample. There is no possibility that such a finding could be other than outside the normal degrees of confidence that you are talking about. If you knew anything about it, you would know that that is the position.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Member that he is addressing me. His intervention is becoming rather lengthy.

Mr. Richards: I think that the House has heard sufficient about the analysis of statistics for the time being. I merely say that the hon. Gentleman seems to know a little about statistics. That being so, he knows that what I am saying is precisely the case. If we quote comparisons with what should or should not be the case, we are able to say with what degree of confidence the assertion is being made. I was saying to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) that he was unable to instil the degree of confidence that I would normally expect following an analysis of data resulting in the sort of statistics that he quoted to the House.
I wish to reassure those in south Wales who feel uneasy by referring again to the Basel convention on the movement of hazardous wastes and their disposal. The treaty sets up a secretariat to supervise and facilitate implementation. It appears that the secretariat will be in Geneva. The treaty asks that less hazardous waste be generated and that what is generated be disposed of as close to its source as possible.
To come to the point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—some of my hon. Friends and I have real conceptual difficulties with the motion. I acknowledge, of course, that the hon. Member for Torfaen does have genuine concern, but I am slightly uneasy about the arguments that have been advanced by Labour Members. Many of their arguments are based on Labour or socialist dogma. The Labour party will always support an enterprise or business, or any other form of development, that is labour intensive. It will always argue the case against enterprises that are capital intensive. It is—[Interruption.] I shall give an example to those Labour Members who are protesting. Let us take coal, for example.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Madam Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Richards: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. When I stand, hon. Members must sit. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) appears to be developing an argument that is not sufficiently relevant to the motion.

Mr. Richards: I am concerned that much of the unease that has been referred to is being generated unnecessarily. Frequently it is generated by politicians, but the same can be said of the media. Often the media are briefed by the Labour party.
I shall quote from an article that appeared in The Scotsman on 7 January. It was written by a Mr. Robert Allen and epitomises why people are frightened and concerned. Part of the article states:
The toxic waste industry is big money.
That is the very point that the hon. Member for Torfaen was making. The article continues:
Greenpeace recently estimated that waste imports were worth £734 million in 1988.
Those are the first two sentences of the article. In other words, it concentrates immediately on the profit that might or might not be made from the disposal of toxic waste. The article then states:
Since then the profits of the major waste disposal companies have doubled. Expansion has been the buzzword. particularly in Scotland.
It then refers to an
'interesting little market', as the company spokesman recently described it.
It adds:
Proposals for incinerators, treatment plant and landfill sites have marginally outnumbered the mergers and takeovers in the scramble for a cut of Scotland's bulging toxic cake." That is the sort of journalism that creates unease among those who live in or near—

Mr. Flynn: One of the difficulties for those of us who live near ReChem is that its profits are enjoyed by people who live in the home counties. In the same way, profits from coal extraction were enjoyed by people who lived far away from coal-mining areas. When ReChem relocates, as I believe it will, will the hon. Gentleman welcome it unreservedly to his constituency?

Mr. Richards: I cannot comment on whether ReChem will or will not relocate. It would be wrong of me to comment on whether it will or will not or whether it should. The hon. Gentleman should know that.
The hon. Gentleman referred to coal in his intervention. The Labour party is happy to support deep mines that are labour intensive, even though those deep mines have adverse environmental effects. The Labour party would argue against opencast mining because that is capital intensive.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is going beyond the scope of the motion.

Mr. Richards: I shall talk briefly about the cost of clearing up toxic waste and the experience of other countries. I shall refer to an article that appeared in The Economist on 29 February. It is headed:
Toxic waste Paying for the past".
It reads:
Easily the most expensive part of America's environmental policy is the cost of cleaning up disused toxic-waste sites. If the cost is high today, it will be higher tomorrow.
The article goes on to say that there
may be as many as 300,000 to 400,000 such places, containing anything from tanks of nasty chemicals to ordinary household waste mixed with discarded car batteries


and drums of pesticide. The cost falls mainly on companies and, increasingly, on their insurers. Some firms believe that no satisfactory technology yet exists for cleaning old sites at a manageable cost.
Estimates of the eventual cost of cleaning are based very much on guess work. A study carried out by the university of Tennessee, which was published in December, arrived at a guess of about $1·18 trillion, that being the cost for the next 30 years. That is at 1990 prices and is for the cleaning to high standards of all old waste sites, including those owned by the Department of Energy and Department of Defence. A more conservative guess by Paul Courtney of Resources for the Future, which is a Washington think tank, is that the average cost of cleaning a site on the priority list of the environmental protection agency is about $40 million. It seems that there will be about 2,000 such sites by the end of the century.

Mr. Nick Ainger: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. What he says is relevant to the United States of America but has nothing to do with the subject of the debate. He is going beyond the reasonable rules of debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have already told the hon. Member that he is straying rather wide of the motion and I issue that warning again. If he does not speak more closely to the terms of the motion I shall have ask him to discontinue.

Mr. Richards: I draw attention to the American experience because it is relevant to what is happening and what will take place in this country. In the United States, such waste dumps are called super-fund sites because they are covered by a law passed in 1980 to set up a large Government fund to clean the dumps. The cost was to be recouped later from the original polluter by the environmental protection agency, unless of course the polluter can be made to pay first.
ReChem says:
Toxic wastes are an unavoidable feature of modern life. They are inevitable by-products from items of everyday existence such as cars, televisions, computers, medicines. cleaning products, paints … Although industry is increasingly adopting waste minimisation measures, the need to dispose of those wastes safely, responsibly and permanently remains paramount.
The manufacture of PCBs, for example, has long been phased out. However, a large amount still exists, together with millions of tonnes of contaminated equipment and previously uncontrolled disposal means that PCBs are already ubiquitous in the environment where they tend to accumulate in the fatty tissue of fish, birds, other animals and man.
The options for the disposal of particularly hazardous organic chemical wastes are limited. The only safe option, acknowledged by the majority of scientists and governments as the best environmental solution, is high temperature incineration.

Mr. Alun Michael: It is clear that we were justified in our suspicion that dirty work was afoot in the House, but goodness knows why, because this is an important and serious debate, introduced in an informed and serious way by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). Why are the Government trying to filibuster? I shall be brief in putting some questions to the Minister, which would allow plenty of time for the Merseyside debate, but the Government

appear to be afraid of that. Why is the Government Chief Whip afraid of this debate and the debate that is due to follow?
The Government have brought Britain into disrepute and made it the dirty man of Europe. Torfaen is an example, but in itself it is a serious topic. The people of Torfaen and Gwent who voted for a Labour Government know that such a Government would have given them the public inquiry that they want and need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said, the matter has been simmering for two decades. Residents' groups and local representative bodies have been calling for a public inquiry for much of that time. There has been a unity of concern for nearly 20 years.
We have heard about the notices served on the company. It is coincidental that, on the radio this morning, there was a national level debate about the lack of information available when notices are served on public companies. There is secrecy in the United Kingdom and it is difficult to get information. That was highlighted during an interview in the broadcast, when it was said that information is often available in America about what is happening in the United Kingdom, even though it is not available to our citizens. So much for the citizens charter.

Mr. Ainger: Will my hon. Friend comment on the statement by Mr. David Thomas, the environmental health officer for the Torfaen area, that he may be aware of shipments coming to ReChem, but is unable to inform his own members, the fire brigade or local disposal authorities about the route of the import?

Mr. Michael: I will comment on that in one word—disgraceful. My hon. Friend is right. I have had experience of that when seeking information from my local authority in Cardiff. I shall shortly give an example, but my hon. Friend makes the point succinctly and with great effect. The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) in his speech against the motion highlighted the difficulty of getting information.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: My hon. Friend says that authorities through whose area toxic wastes are being imported are unaware of the movement. Will he comment on the infamous case of the Karin B, which was taking toxic waste from Italy all around the world because no port would accept it? At that time, the port authority in Cardiff tried to find out whether the waste would come to Cardiff. It was discovered that the local authority had no knowledge of the movement of toxic waste through the city. Toxic wastes were being imported through Harwich and, by chance, the importer mistakenly sent to Cardiff port authority the information that the toxic wastes were to be moved on the Pengam freight line through Cardiff. Toxic wastes affect not only a port and a chemical site: they have effects all along the route. When are we to hear from the Government about their so-called freedom of information?

Mr. Michael: It is very unlikely that we will hear anything from the Government. They may make statements about statements, but they are unlikely to give freedom of information or rights to our citizens. I am aware of the case that my hon. Friend mentions. It outraged people in Cardiff, members of the local authority and officers. That consignment, and probably many others that we do not know about, came through my


constituency. Although I had been asking questions, I knew nothing about the passage of that consignment through Cardiff.
As my hon. Friend rightly says, it entered Britain through the port of Harwich, and its relevance to the debate is considerable because it was destined for ReChem at Pontypool. It was transferred by rail to the freightliner terminal at Pengam and completed its journey by road to ReChem in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen. My hon. Friend is right to say that it came to the city council's attention only as a consequence of the producer and importer erroneously sending a copy of the transfrontier shipment note to Cardiff city council. That is not how such matters should come to the public's notice.

Dr. Kim Howells: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in view of the nonsense that has been spoken in this debate, it is proper to defend investigative journalism? Does he agree that anyone who tries to find out such information is not helped by the fact that ReChem would sue a woodpile on the chance that there was a snake in it?

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes a cogent point. The Government have not put in place systems that enable environmental health authorities, elected representatives or the general public to have full information. How are we to debate those issues except in this House, with the privileges that exist here?

Mr. Roy Thomason: rose—

Mr. Michael: It is wrong that that should be so, because those are matters of public interest and concern, and should be matters of public debate and information.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Thomason) must not continue to stand if the person who has the Floor does not give way. Is the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) willing to give way?

Mr. Michael: I was about to give way at the end of the sentence, as that makes it much easier for the Hansard reporters to make sense of one's contribution.

Mr. Thomason: I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, but that was the signal that I had interpreted from the hon. Gentleman.
The Government have gone out to consultation under the European general directive on freedom of information in relation to environmental matters. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, once that consultation procedure has taken place, that directive will provide the information which he alleges the Government are not giving?

Mr. Michael: It is outrageous that the Government must be pushed by Europe to do what they should do anyway. During the coming months, we may see the irony of the President of the Commission pressing himself for a change, so we might see some movement as a result of him talking to himself.
The British Government should set in place systems that allow the public to have the facts. The Minister should answer the debate by admitting that there is public concern, that we should get at the truth and say that he will establish the public inquiry requested by my hon. Friend

the Member for Torfaen. Why not do that? Why the secrecy? What are the Government trying to cover up? We know that briefs from ReChem, the Whips' Office or the Minister have been passed around Conservative Members, and we wait to hear from them whether they wish to share the secret with us. It is clear that a considerable exercise has taken place today to try to frustrate straight answers to straight questions, as well as to frustrate the desire of my hon. Friends from Merseyside for the debate that they need.
Notices have been served on the company, but there is a lack of information about their content. They are surrounded by secrecy. That point was highlighted by the hon. Member for Monmouth as he spoke against the motion in obedience to his Whips. He says that he does not want a public inquiry just now. After 20 years, why not?

Mr. Roger Evans: I said that it was premature until Professor Lewis Roberts had reported and the basis of granting or withholding a licence this autumn was determined. If there is no answer to both those matters by then, a public inquiry may well be necessary.

Mr. Michael: The Minister could help us by standing up and saying that he will make a statement in November, and that he is minded to grant a public inquiry then. I suspect that the hon. Member for Monmouth is prevaricating and will be reminded of his contribution in a few months' time. He also made a case for powers for local authorities to act on behalf of local people, although I have no doubt that he will vote against that consistently in this House in the coming years.
By putting scientific evidence on the record, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has done us a service. He has also demonstrated that the topic cannot be dealt with adequately in such a debate but needs a proper public inquiry with the capacity to take evidence, cross-examine witnesses, call experts and get at the truth. My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen made it clear at the beginning that he is after the truth. He is after neither individuals nor companies—nor is he knocking profits. He simply wants to bring matters into the open.
The Minister does not need long to answer the debate. I suspect that the piles of papers next to him are to fill any acres of time that may be left so that he can talk the matter through until the end of the time available. However, he must answer some simple questions. Will he agree to set up a proper, searching, objective public inquiry? If he has nothing to hide and if the company has nothing to hide, he can have no objection to that. After all the controversy, the people of Pontypool have a right to seek such an inquiry as a minimum. If he will not grant the inquiry, we must conclude that he has something to hide or has taken leave of his senses.
It is important to get at the truth in this matter, because no standard international definition of toxic or hazardous waste exists. Different bodies use different criteria to form waste categories and the Control of Pollution (Special Waste) Regulations 1980, which were introduced to provide tighter control over the carriage of waste that would seriously threaten life during its transportation or disposal defines "special waste" by reference to a schedule of substances known as "list 1".
To qualify as special waste, waste must also be dangerous to life in accordance with the principles of toxicity, corrosivity, a flashpoint of less than 21 deg. C or


the presence of a prescription-only medicine. The definitions of those properties in the regulations do not correspond with similar properties in the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substance regulations. Those regulations apply to the transfer of waste from one site to another—from a production plant to a disposal site—and are genuinely more stringent. None the less, information is difficult to come by.

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To illustrate how difficult it is to get information, the latest that I could get dates from 1988, when 83,000 tonnes of hazardous waste were imported into this country. Among those imports were the extremely hazardous wastes of PCBs, much of which is destined to go to ReChem. Does my hon. Friend agree that transporting PCBs, if not absolutely essential, by sea is extremely dangerous because PCBs accumulate in the food chain. They accumulate particularly in the fatty deposits of marine mammals such as dolphins. We already have evidence that the reason for the great decline in dolphin numbers in Cardigan bay is party due to the level of PCBs in their systems.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend makes his point extremely well. The import of hazardous waste into the United Kingdom, which means sea transport, has increased massively. In the year to March 1990, the United Kingdom was importing more than 34,000 tonnes of hazardous waste. Such imports amounted to only some 5,000 tonnes a year in the early 1980s. That clearly shows, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said earlier, that the imports come not from developing countries that might not have the technology to deal with hazardous waste but almost exclusively from the developed world. My hon. Friend the Member for. Cardiff, Central is right to say that it is scandalous for such waste to be skulling around the oceans of the world rather than being dealt with in developed countries that clearly have the capacity to deal with them.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Gentleman said that, if the Government refuse to hold a plublic inquiry on the matter, they must have something to hide. Must I assume that, whenever an Opposition Member asks for a public inquiry on anything and the Government refuse on the ground that research or studies are already being carried out or that there is sufficient monitoring, they have something to hide?

Mr. Michael: No. I am in some difficulty, because the hon. Gentleman intervened on a subject from which I had moved on when I responded to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones). I have two lines to take. I will deal first with the point raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) and will then return to the other point.
No, it is not a reasonable expectation that, every time there is a request for a public inquiry, it should be granted. What is reasonable is that, when there has been concern for 20 years, when there is a unity of concern from elected representatives, when there is a unity of concern from local community groups throughout the area, and when those issues have not been dealt with adequately in any way or in any forum, the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) should be answered simply and clearly by the Minister by granting a public inquiry.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Paragraph 16 says:
We recommend that the Welsh Office should ask independent experts to undertake a comprehensive monitoring programme of the plant and its environment. The independent experts should produce a report showing the results of the monitoring programme in a form which is made publicly available and readily comprehensible to the public. The report should be presented to the Secretary of State who should order a public inquiry if the results show that there is a serious risk to public health or the environment.
Surely the Government's response subsequently has been to appoint Professor Roberts. There have been two interim reports. Professor Roberts's study is not due to be concluded until January 1993. If—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. This intervention is becoming a speech. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat and allow the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) to continue.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) may be able to make his points in a filibuster—I mean contribution—later in the debate. I respond to him simply by saying that, since the preparation of the report by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, further information has become available, including information contributed in the debate. The grave concern requires a response. No doubt the inquiry being undertaken and the technical information will be of assistance to a public inquiry. However, a public inquiry is needed to restore confidence among people in the area directly affected.
The Select Committee made a number of recommendations, some of which were quoted by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor, about the public availability of information and about public scrutiny of that information. It would be a complete volte face by the Government to make information so readily available. That is why—he is right to do so—my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen has called so clearly for a public inquiry which will go properly into all the issues.
I return to the point about the transportation of hazardous waste. Some 30 per cent. of all hazardous waste imports come from the Netherlands, and another 50 per cent. come from Belgium, Switzerland and the United States, which are certainly not third-world countries requiring the assistance of our high technology to dispose of their products.
The Labour party believes that waste, including all forms of hazardous waste, should be dealt with as near as possible to the point at which it arises. The Government should therefore end the trade in toxic waste, allowing it only in the most exceptional circumstances, when we have the facilities to help with an environmental disaster elsewhere.

Mr. Ainger: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reason why there are massive imports of toxic waste into this country, with a significant increase in the 1980s and early 1990s, is that ReChem is not a high-technology company, but a low-technology company? It has a static bed furnace, not a rolling furnace, and it does not have after-burners. Capital investment at the plant has been far lower than is the case for its foreign competitors. That is why its prices are lower. In this wonderful free market, we end up with the world's waste.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and he ties together the two aspects. One is the international transport of toxic waste and the other is its disposal. It is a sad fact that we are behind other countries in Europe generally in relation to incineration. I made it my business last year to make a number of visits to find out a little bit about incineration. I found that, whereas Britain is gradually being dragged towards the level of European requirements, which will be tightened up and advanced in the coming years, other countries, such as Germany, already place internally far more stringent requirements, and their local authorities have the power to place even stricter requirements in the interests of the local community. Those authorities have greater subsidiarity and there is far greater confidence in the ability of elected representatives of local people to act on their behalf than is the case here.
Were such subsidiarity in place here, the elected representatives in Torfaen, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen, would have been able to deal with the issue properly and in the public eye rather than having to raise it in a motion and call for a public inquiry. It is a job which should be done simply and without such protest being necessary.
The point has been well made. We should stop Britain being what my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) described as the "dioxin dustbin" of the developed world. I ask the Minister to give us confirmation that Australia, Canada and other developed countries to which I have referred will be told to deal with their own toxic waste, not just in one application from Western Australia which has come under close public scrutiny by elected representatives in Gwent and in South Glamorgan, but generally as a matter of public policy. Will the Minister assure us that Britain intends to tell other developed countries, "Look after your own waste from now on"?
The Minister can also answer a number of requests that have properly been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen. He asked that the Government should respond on whether emergency plan regulations should be applied to ReChem. He asked for proper Government resourcing for Torfaen borough council to cope with the extra expenses of monitoring ReChem. He asked for greater clarification of the roles of Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution and of the National Rivers Authority in connection with monitoring ReChem. He asked for a commitment by the Government that no future incinerators will be built in residential areas—especially, we might add, in a valley. He asked that the Government allow direct public knowledge of why health and safety notices were served on ReChem, and he asked whether the company's commitment to £2·5 million was related to the notices.
My hon. Friend asked the Minister to sponsor a local health study in the Panteg area. He also asked him to give a commitment that the Government will not try to weaken anti-toxic waste import legislation during the British presidency of the EC. I make that point again in relation to the Prime Minister talking to himself during the coming months.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the specific requirements. He does not need a long, rambling discourse in which to do that. He can simply say whether he will accede to the reasonable list of modest proposals described by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen.

Will the Minister say that the importation of toxic waste will be stopped except for emergencies and in the most unusual circumstances? Above all, will he give us the assurance we seek, that there will be a full and searching public inquiry into the operation of the plant at Pontypool?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful for the opportunity to put pressure on the Government on a matter which is of great importance to the people of Pontypool and of considerably wider importance. I am grateful, as are other hon. Members, to the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) for choosing the subject and for bringing us the last opportunity before the summer to raise all the issues that have been raised over the years, but which have not produced an adequate response from the public authorities.
The reason why the issue is still being debated after 20 years of its being a matter of concern to the people of Gwent is that they are not satisfied. The reality of environmental matters, generally and specifically, is that people are not normally concerned without good reason after such a long debate. It is not just the people of Monmouthshire who are concerned; it is their representatives, too.

Mr. Flynn: Gwent.

Mr. Hughes: What was Monmouthshire and is now Gwent.
The people of that part of the country and their representatives at all levels—local and county councillors, Members of Parliament and the Member of the European Parliament—are concerned about what is happening at ReChem. I hope that the Minister will address the issues and respond clearly and succinctly to the remaining concerns, which I am sure he accepts are valid.
There are four questions to be answered. What are the environmental and health and safety implications of the operations currently taking place at the ReChem plant in Pontypool? What are the safety implications of the process of PCB incineration? What should be the procedure for answering those questions? And what is the Government's policy in relation to the importation of waste, which is what gives rise to the three preceding questions?
It is not doubted that PCBs are dangerous. In its own document, ReChem describes them as
the most dangerous organic substances".
The substances, whose use began in the 1920s and continued until the 1960s, are generally accepted to be of the most dangerous order, as we know from scientific research.
Without doubt, PCBs have a deleterious effect on human and animal health. They can cause cancer in animals and damage enzymes in human livers. They can cause neurological disturbances and it is feared that babies ingesting PCBs through their mothers' milk can be harmed. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) said in his intervention about Cardigan bay, PCBs can affect mammals such as dolphins. They have affected such creatures not only in this country but elsewhere. There is no doubt about the severe harm to health that PCBs can cause.
PCBs are long lasting. Once they have entered the food chain, it is not easy to get rid of them. We know of only two methods of dealing with them—burial and


incineration. If they are buried, there is a danger that they will leak into the surrounding environment and it is therefore reasonable to consider incineration. The trouble with incineration is that it leaves a residue and one faces two risks in incinerating a substance as dangerous as PCBs: first, that the plant is defective and the process is improperly carried out and, secondly, that the process produces a residue that is left in the plant or the surrounding area or carried airborne further afield.

Mr. Ainger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason for the recent increase in the export of PCBs from Sweden is that the Swedish Government have decided that the incineration of PCBs is too dangerous? They have decided to export their problem rather than to solve it and have given it to us. The Swedes have made a decision which is correct for them, but damaging internationally, and certainly to Wales, in the belief that this country will allow the PCBs to be burnt.

Mr. Hughes: I was aware of that. The policies of countries that give high priority to environmental health should inform not only the debate but the decisions of the Government. We are not talking about scare stories without substance but about industrial processes that are discovered, sooner or later, to have really harmful effects. In this case, we are concerned to ensure that the process is changed or discontinued before it can cause significant harm. We all know what effect the activities at Sellafield have had on the health of people in Cumbria. It is no good waiting until it is too late—until the health of workers at the plant and people living nearby and their children is affected.
What is the history of this debate? There have been inquiries, as the Minister knows. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) quoted from the report of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which was certainly concerned and which recommended that it should be Government policy that such a plant should never again be erected and operated in a residential area. The Government have not yet made a statement of policy accepting that recommendation and it would be extremely helpful if they did. Moreover, in its published report, HMIP pointed out that it had previously said that ReChem's incinerator design was inadequate. Perfectly good, credible, quasi-independent agencies have made critical comments and have suggested that something needs to be done.
The question of what needs to be done is the matter which most concerns the 15,000 people living within two miles of the plant, but what happens in Pontypool is extremely important if the Government are to show that they do not just have a policy in theory but apply it in practice.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that ReChem is spending £2·5 million on the plant following the investigation by HMIP and that an inquiry is currently taking place? There have been two interim reports and we are awaiting a final report. Perhaps it would be better to wait until we receive that report before taking any action.

Mr. Hughes: I want to link the hon. Gentleman's second point with the point made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). ReChem is, indeed, spending money, as any responsible company should if there is public concern about its operations. Any inquiry—

whether a private inquiry by an expert who publishes a report or a public inquiry—must include ReChem. The company must be a key element in any inquiry into what is happening. I do not criticise ReChem's response in terms of expenditure. One of the problems with the present policy, however, is that we need to make private processes transparent. If the environment is to be protected, we cannot have no-go areas where there are private companies. If the public sector is under scrutiny, the private sector must also be under scrutiny, especially as it is often the cause of environmental pollution—by its very nature, as it is responsible for most of the production in the country.
Statistics have been referred to. It is especially important to realise that the plant deals with about one quarter of the toxic waste imported into the United Kingdom. It is the only significant plant in Wales that deals with toxic waste. There are three ports of admission—Newport, Swansea and Holyhead—but only in Pontypool is there any significant processing, so here we have the test case by which to establish whether the present policy is correct.
The plant is of significant and continuing concern to the local borough and county councils who devote a lot of their resources to trying to monitor the plant and to do the job properly. I do not think that any criticism can be laid at their door.
What should the Government do? Their White Paper on the environment, published in September 1990, said that waste
should be regarded as a tradeable commodity like any other.
The Government's policy was that toxic waste should not be imported into Britian from developed countries. That was stated clearly in the White Paper and the Prime Minister himself has stated it since.
As hon. Members have pointed out, the majority of toxic waste is coming here from developed, rather than undeveloped, countries. Some of them, in economic terms, are higher than us in the league table. If British Government policy is that there shall be no such imports from developed countries, the Minister must explain why imports from those countries have increased in the past two years. Indeed, 95 per cent. of waste imports now come from countries not far afield, some of them the most developed in Europe.
The most recent examples show that since the Basle convention, from which the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) quoted at over-great length, to no great effect, although that is a matter of judgment, came into existence—it was signed by the British Government in May of this year—little has changed. If it is the intention that there must be acceptance by the recipient country before waste is sent by the exporting country, to avoid the Karin B type of situation, no consideration should be given to the current application by Australia, as quoted in The Independent on Sunday 24 June of this year. I understand that that concerns a company associated with ReChem and that it would involve the importation of up to 1,000 tonnes of high-level toxic waste from a new source as the result of a bilateral agreement between Britain and Australia.
The process of decision-making is now all-important. It is extremely worrying to recall that when a transaction was entered into last year for the importation of German toxic waste into a site in southern England and questions were


raised about how that could be justified, given the policy of the Government, a Department of the Environment spokesman said:
There is no legal imposition for us to intervene in what is a perfectly commercial transaction.
It is not consistent to say that there shall be no imports from developed countries and go on to say that we shall not intervene when importation from a developed country, such as Germany, is undertaken by a British company. Government policy in this matter must be consistent, and we understood that it prohibited imports of waste from developed countries.

Mr. Cohn Shepherd: I have sympathy for much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I wish to explore the question of Government policy in the matter because I understand that policy, based on a statement made by the Minister of State, Department of the Environment, to be that the Government believe that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in the final disposal of waste. That is different from saying that there shall be none. It implies a transition.

Mr. Hughes: I have argued that it was unrealistic to say that we cannot import any from any country, when many countries do not have the facilities to deal with their own waste. I have argued that developed countries could be expected to have the facility, while developing countries could not, which must involve a phasing-out operation. But the Minister of State in the previous Administration, the then hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen, now Sir David Trippier, was reported by the Daily Mail in 1990 as having said:
I am sick to death of hearing Britain described as the dirty man of Europe. Enough is enough. I see no reason at all why developed countries should not provide their own facilities.
If Government policy is that where developed countries have, or easily could have, facilities to deal with their own waste, we should make it clear that importation from those countries will not be authorised. As I say, I understand that ReChem-imported wastes come almost entirely from developed, rather than developing, countries.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: In the context of the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the import of Australian toxic waste, he suggested that there had recently been a report in the press to the effect that a further application may be under consideration. Perhaps at the same time he will give credit for the answer given by the Minister of State, Department of the Environment on 10 June to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) when he said that he had decided not to agree to a request from Australia.

Mr. Hughes: The sequence of events involved a ministerial answer in June, with a later report at the end of June which suggested that the issue was still alive and had not yet been resolved. The Minister's answer did not say that no licence or permission would apply at any time to that application.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Gentleman concede the point I made earlier to the effect that the suggested importation in question had been a matter of great public debate and comment here and in Australia, whereas unfortunately such matters often happen without that degree of public knowledge and scrutiny?

Mr. Hughes: That is true. Fortunately, people are increasingly aware of these issues in other developed countries, and the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) was right to refer to the situation in Sweden, which addressed the issue and responded accordingly.
We must decide how to deal with the matter for the people of Pontypool and for ReChem. The inquiry commissioned by a professor at East Anglia university is nearing completion. That document, when produced, should be placed in the public domain. The whole issue of the ReChem plant, its future and the potential effects of what is happening there should not be of concern just to those who license the operation in Pontypool at the end of the year, but should influence the policy of the Government on licensing generally.
For that reason, it is important that the whole issue of PCB incineration—in the light of what has happened at Pontypool—with all the evidence and any reports that are published, should be pulled together and placed in the public domain. That would enable anyone with a legitimate interest to contribute to the debate. That should include local authorities, the industrial sector, potential perspective importers, environmental health agencies and elected representatives.
The people of Pontypool and the county of Gwent and others who are interested in the issue will not be satisfied if, as it were, a test case about whether it is possible any longer to incinerate PCBs safely in this country, is not scrutinised in a proper public forum. The whole issue must be handled correctly if we are to allay the fear that the health of people and animals will not be adequately protected.
I hope that the Government will say today that they do not rule out a public inquiry. They should also say that they will not grant a licence, not just until after the examination that is under way is completed but until after all those with a concern, having seen the report of that examination, have a chance to put their case so that the Government can respond. The Government must look favourably on the request for a public inquiry in the wider interest of the issue and be consistent in their policy by not allowing future imports of toxic wastes from countries classified as developed.
I hope that in the six months of the British presidency, leading up to the full implementation of the European market at the beginning of next year, they will be certain that under the new regime that will apply from 1 January 1993 the same tough position in relation to toxic waste in Britain to which the British Government are wedded will be applied Europewide by then as a result of their initiatives in the EC.
We are debating a matter of the greatest importance. I hope that, when replying to the debate, the Minister will give specific undertakings and commitments, particularly in relation to the type of inquiry for which the hon. Member for Torfaen asked.

Mr. Flynn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The normal conventions of the House are not being followed, with the result that the rights and privileges of Back Benchers are under threat. Three subjects were selected for debate this morning. It is the normal convention for the Ministers to speak after the Front-Bench spokesmen for the Labour party and Liberal Democrats. As the Minister is not rising, it seems that there is little chance that the important motions tabled by


my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) will be discussed. Is not that proof that there is an organised filibuster on the Conservative Benches—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I have sat in the Chair most Fridays, when we have never managed to get through all our proceedings. Many hon. Members are still rising and it is my duty to call them.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You were not here for the earlier part of the debate. I rose on a point of order to point out to Madam Speaker that there were rumours—more than rumours; strong evidence—that the Government had organised today's proceedings to avoid bringing the Minister with responsibilities for Merseyside, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire), to the Dispatch Box to answer the motions tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mrs. Kennedy) and myself. Had you been present throughout this morning's proceedings, you would have noted, first, that my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen and I have received the utmost co-operation—[interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask other hon. Members not to have a sedentary argument. I wish to listen to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. H owarth).

Mr. Howarth: You would have observed, first, that we have received the utmost co-operation from my hon. Friends from south Wales, who have taken a legitimate interest in the first motion. Secondly, you would have observed that the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) spoke and quoted at length but has now gone, having first asked the Minister's permission. He quoted extensively and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I sat in the Chair earlier between 2 am and 5 am, when all sorts of rumours were circulating. I say to hon. Members on both sides that I sat here one Friday when an Opposition Member spoke for 81 minutes. There is no rule on the length of speeches on a Friday or on whether we should get to a second motion. It is entirely dependent on how many Members wish to speak and how long they speak for. As long as they stay in order, I am in the hands of the House. We must proceed.

Mr. Thomason: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that it is a new point of order, otherwise I shall rule against it.

Mr. Thomason: It follows from that point of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a new one, then. is it?

Mr. Colin Shepherd: It is a pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on seizing the opportunity to raise an issue that has exercised him and his predecessor for a long time. During my association, at a very menial level, with the Welsh Office and Welsh Members in the last Parliament, I came to recognise the hon. Member for Torfaen as a sincere

constituency Member. I recognise the sincerity with which he raised the matter. I listened to his opening remarks with much care.
It must be frustrating that the hon. Gentleman's opportunity should have arrived before the survey that was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has been completed. I recognise that the opportunity for such a debate cannot be allowed to pass. I have have been balloting for motions ever since I have been here, but have never come in the first three. It is difficult to know what one might do if the opportunity arose; there are so many matters that one might like to explore.

Mr. George Howarth: The hon. Member seems to be addressing his remarks to me, but my frustration stems from the deliberate attempts of Conservative Members to frustrate my hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen and myself.

Mr. Shepherd: I recognise the hon. Gentleman's frustration. He has also been in the House quite a long time. I am glad that I am attending a conference on Commonwealth matters this afternoon at Great Windsor park, which enables me to be in London on a day when I would normally be in Hereford.
As I do not live far from the area concerned, and as I pass it regularly on the train, I have considerable sympathy with the points that the hon. Member for Torfaen has assiduously pursued since he has been in the House.
The demands and pleading of the hon. Member for Torfaen for a public inquiry are ahead of the game. If we had the results of the Secretary of State's survey to hand, it would form the foundation for a public inquiry and he would be absolutely right to say, "Right, chaps, let's have a public inquiry."
I was aware of the ReChem and Pontypool issue while I was associated, albeit in a menial capacity, with the Welsh Office. I have reviewed the steps that have been taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, and I think, with the wisdom of hindsight, that he has got it right. He has achieved a measured set of steps aimed at eventually getting at the truth, in such a way as not to cause unnecessary disturbance, while maintaining a balance between the interests involved.
I recognise that that is a point of frustration to the hon. Member for Torfaen, but it is correct to proceed on the basis of knowledge rather than surmise. Any inquiry initiated now would immediately have to adjourn for such information to be found. The history of the matter shows that there is not a firm foundation of fact, but there is the unease to which the hon. Member for Torfaen referred. The call for a public inquiry is premature but understandable.
The motion understandably refers to the cessation of the importation of toxic wastes into Wales. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), with whom I found myself in substantial agreement—it goes against the grain to agree with a Liberal, but I must accept that from time to time it will happen—put the argument very well. With his barristerial training, he is well equipped to do so.
Why are we dealing with this matter in a Welsh context? I am a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. I sometimes wish to take part in proceedings in the House that do not relate only to England or Wales. I should have


the uninhibited freedom to participate, as many colleagues do, in matters pertaining to Scotland or Wales without being accused of filibustering or poking my nose into a matter that does not affect me. It does, because we are dealing with United Kingdom matters. Therefore, the motion should deal not with the import and disposal of toxic wastes in Wales, but with toxic wastes trade, cross-boundary movement and all the various other matters involved in the disposal of toxic wastes. We must consider the subject on a wider basis. We should say not merely that toxic wastes should not come into Wales—

Mr. Michael: I suspect that the hon. Gentleman had reason to be absent at certain points of the debate—perhaps for inspecting the kitchens or whatever—but I can assure him that these issues have been dealt with comprehensively. We are all waiting for a response from the Minister. We have asked him for answers. The hon. Gentleman is delaying that response. I suspect that that is what the Government want, but it is not what we want. We want to hear the answers.

Mr. Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct that I had to deal with matters of refreshment, and I do not just mean drinking coffee. One of his colleagues had tabled a question about the Refreshment Department that needed attention, and I must take these opportunities when they arise.
I am rather sorry for the hon. Gentleman that he sees everything through clouds of suspicion. Although I was called away from the Chamber on essential business—I had to guess when I would be called—it is entirely right that I should be allowed to put my point on the matter.

Mr. Michael: I accept that. The hon. Gentleman told us what we should have been debating. My point was that during his absences in the Refreshment Department, we dealt with those issues. I invite him to join us in hearing the Minister's response. I am sure that we shall all want to comment on it.

Mr. Shepherd: I cannot say that I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because we are going over old ground. It bothers me that his hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is getting more and more brassed off with him as he intervenes.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that many Conservative Members have stayed behind this Friday specifically to contribute to this debate before the Minister answers it? I am grateful for that opportunity. To be accused of filibustering before making the environmental points that I wish to make—an important subject that Opposition Members raise time and again—is disgraceful.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) gets started again, I remind the House of the motion before us. Let us stick to it rather than make comments about what should or should not have been the motion this morning. It is clear what the motion is, and I intend to ensure that hon. Members debate it.

Mr. Shepherd: I will put myself at risk by saying that, if I were to vote against the motion, it would be because it was incorrectly worded, and therefore unacceptable. I am

treading this narrow path carefully. I do not think that I can reasonably debate whether toxic waste should be disposed of in Wales without saying where and how it should be disposed of and how it should get there.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) raised that matter, so I hope that I am not out of order in saying that I would have preferred the motion to deal with the underlying questions that must be addressed. I am trying to be as helpful as I can.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) has left the Chamber. No doubt he will be back shortly.

Mr. Ainger: A call of nature.

Mr. Shepherd: I thank that hon. Gentleman for that. We all have to deal with these tiresome necessities.
The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent brushed on the underlying point of any inquiry that might flow from the results of the survey which is being conducted now. I do not intend to pre-empt the response of my hon. Friend the Minister and how he deals with the real questions raised on both sides of the House when I say that we must address not only how we get rid of what we have, bearing in mind that we have created these hazardous wastes as a consequence of our technological development, consumerism and expanded quality of life, but also how we stop the situation arising in future.
Substantial research is being conducted on chlorofluorocarbons—I do not think that I am out of order in mentioning that—and how we replace them, for example in aerosols. We must initiate the concept of a design and engineering audit in any product development programme, which relates to what happens to that product after it has completed its useful life. The product should be open to scrutiny at its launch by those who would reasonably ask what problems would arise when it was finished with.
PCBs came about as a transformer fluid. They performed a function. Nobody asked what we would do with the PCBs when the transformer was dead. That question must be asked. I want the Government to develop thinking of that nature in their dealings with other countries. It is one thing to say, "We shall put up barriers and deal only with our own toxic wastes," but quite another to say, "We shall export the stuff to developing countries and we can reasonably take back the wastes."
We must also ask what will cause Sweden and other countries that are content to pass the buck to us to rethink their policies and address the disposal of waste.

Mr. Ainger: Surely it is best immediately to stop importing waste from countries such as Sweden and make them address their problems rather than push those problems on to us.

Mr. Shepherd: Personally, I would have no hang-ups about that. It is one way of forcing the issue and the Government may wish to use it. On the other hand, is it not pre-empting the issue now? The matter still rests on the survey being done in the Pontypool area to get the basis of fact. As soon as we have that, we can say, "Fine, we cannot do this any more. We must stop. We can prevent third countries, developed or underdeveloped, from exporting waste into this country." But we must also recognise that, within the European Community, there must be a proper forum with a strong programme of determination behind


it to address how to deal with these questions within the Community. It does not become trade within the Community; it becomes just a movement of goods. There are no boundary restrictions. Those are the underlying issues.
I enormously respect the contribution of the hon. Member for Torfaen. I am disappointed, however, that he did not suggest how the problem might be solved. It is one thing to say, "Not in my back yard," although I realise that he has got it in his back yard, and I have to admit that, if a similar planning application were made in the Hereford area, I should scrutinise it vigorously, so we are all exposed to the NIM BY syndrome. But apart from saying that it should not happen, we must also say what should happen in its place.
As the Government read and review the findings of the survey, I suggest that they should regard this as a broader issue than just Wales. ReChem is the example, but the underlying principles are wider. I suggest that we ought to build in a pan-European or pan-Community approach to the problem and that we ought to stimulate the thought processes that would lead to the problem's being eliminated. The underlying point is that, apart from saying that for every problem there is a solution, we have to remember that for every solution there is also a problem.

Lady Olga Maitland: the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) kept on referring to the fact that there will not be time to debate his motion today. It ought to be pointed out that the Chair has, rightly, judged this to be a bogus request. It should be borne in mind that the hon. Gentleman's motion came second in the ballot and that it is appropriate for the House to concentrate on the first motion on the Order Paper. It puzzles me that the hon. Gentleman, who is Opposition spokesman for the environment, has failed to contribute to this important debate.

Mr. George Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not an Opposition spokesman on anything.

Lady Olga Maitland: Then The Times Guide to the House of Commons must be wrong.
Reference was made earlier in the debate to something with which I agree: that we are the guardians of this Earth. It is important to place this topic in a wider perspective. Many hon. Members in the Chamber are Welsh. It is appropriate that they should identify the problems from a Welsh point of view. I have always regarded myself as a foreigner as I do not come from Wales, but this is a British problem and a British issue. We are all affected. We must not adopt a simplistic view and say that we should not produce goods that lead to the production of hazardous wastes. It is like putting one's head in the sand and trying to pretend that the problem does not exist.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Lady accept that what I said was that Governments should not agree to goods being produced unless they have both the willingness and the capability to deal with them safely when they come to the end of their natural life?

Lady Olga Maitland: That is an unreliable view. We should accept that toxic wastes exist. They are the result of the products that have been created by man to serve mankind, from which we have received many benefits.

Modern products have provided us with life-saving gadgets, television sets, radios, medicines, paints, adhesives, fireproof fabrics, cleaning products, garden and farm fertilisers—just to mention a few items whose residues are toxic. It would be unrealistic, however, to argue that we can do without those products.
Modern technology has helped us to get rid of toxic waste. In the past, we dealt with it in a cavalier way because we lacked the information to get rid of it safely. We take a different view today. We do not like farmers to dump unwanted pesticides on the local tip. We do not want packaged garden fertilisers rotting on the shelf long after their sell-by date. Public safety means treating the subject seriously.
I recognise how important it is to keep the production of waste to a minimum and to dispose of it in an environmentally acceptable way, which today's modern technology allows us to do. High temperature incineration has proved to be the most effective treatment. We must now ask ourselves what is the source of all that toxic waste. Opposition Members suggested that this country has been flooded with obnoxious waste from overseas, but that is not true.
The United Kingdom alone generates 2·4 million tonnes of hazardous waste. In the past year, Wales generated 76,000 tonnes. Contrary to the figures quoted by Labour Members, imported waste—

Mr. Ainger: The hon. Lady quotes figures for the amount of toxic waste generated in Britain. My hon. Friends the Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Blaenau, Gwent (Mr. Smith) quoted the figures for PCBs, which is what the debate is really all about. It concerns not toxic waste in general but PCBs specifically.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have the Order Paper before me, and I see no mention of PCBs in the motion tabled by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). It refers only the import and disposal of toxic waste. Perhaps we may seek your clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The motion does not make any specific mention of PCBs, although they may be implied. Perhaps we may continue.

Mr. Ainger: Perhaps the hon. Lady can give the figures she has for PCBs incinerated at the ReChem plant. What is the tonnage generated in the United Kingdom, and how much is imported?

Lady Olga Maitland: We should place PCBs in the overall context of all noxious waste. It is spurious to exclude one type or another, because all such waste presents a hazard that must be treated with equal respect.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I put to the hon. Lady the figures for imported toxic waste, which is a separate issue from the waste generated in this country. in 1989–90, we imported 33,000 tonnes. In 1990–91, we generated 44,000 tonnes of toxic waste. In the 12 months to last December, we imported 51,643 tonnes. By any definition, imports must be increasing.

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but I have different figures. Toxic waste imports through United Kingdom ports for disposal in Wales—

Mr. Simon Hughes: The total for the United Kingdom?

Lady Olga Maitland: I believe that my figures are different from those that the hon. Gentleman has, and we could go on debating them for ever and a day.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that total toxic waste imports have fallen substantially, from 80.000 tonnes in 1987–88 to 40,000 tonnes in 1990?

Lady Olga Maitland: I thank my hon. Friend for making a point that I was just about to make myself.

Mr. Michael: The hon. Lady has the same brief.

Lady Olga Maitland: We all have the same brief—it is just that you choose which figures you quote.

Mr. Michael: I am sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the hon. Lady was referring to me, rather than to you. The figures that I gave earlier show that over a decade, there has been a tenfold increase in toxic imports. The hon. Lady's figures are rather curious—but they seem to be the same figures that have been handed out to all Conservative Members.

Lady Olga Maitland: Your figures, as in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", are getting curiouser and curiouser.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must be addressed correctly. The use of "you" and "your" are not permissible in the Chamber. The hon. Lady must refer to the "hon. Gentleman's figures" or to "the figures given by the hon. Member"—whichever is appropriate.

Lady Olga Maitland: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I stand corrected.
Of the 44,000 tonnes of waste imported into the United Kingdom as a whole, only 16 per cent. went to ReChem in Wales. If the Opposition do not want waste to be treated in Wales, where do they want it to go? Where will it be dumped? What will the Opposition do with noxious and hazardous waste? Will it go here, there, anywhere? Does dumping of Welsh hazardous waste elsewhere make it somehow better? Does treating Welsh waste elsewhere make it better? What alternatives do the Opposition offer for treatment of this waste?
It is important to bear in mind that this is a problem which affects us all. Environmental pollution is no respecter of boundaries whether in Wales, England or over the borders. In other words, a country should get rid of its own waste whenever possible.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the hon. Lady meant her remarks to be rhetorical, but she has just given her own answer, which she would have heard earlier in the debate had she been listening.

Lady Olga Maitland: That is beyond comment.

Mr. Michael: It is just accurate.

Lady Olga Maitland: It is not at all accurate.
We have now got down to Murphy's law or the NIMBY factor. People do not want safe waste destruction plants in their backyard. The NIMBY factor makes for greater dangers.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Lady accept that an alternative site for the ReChem plant could be in her constituency? If planning application for such a plant were

submitted would she support it with the enthusiasm with which she thinks we should accept the ReChem plant in our constituency?

Lady Olga Maitland: I have confidence in ReChem's safety programme and in the HMIP and its findings. If I did not, the problems would apply wherever the plant was situated. The hon. Gentleman is implying criticism of the HMIP. Does he think that it got it wrong? As far as I can see, it has got it right. There have been no instances of illnesses or destruction in the community, but I know that people have been concerned. Much of it is to do with fear of the unknown and lack of understanding of what is going on. Therefore, the independent inquiry being carried out by the university of East Anglia is appropriate.
The Murphy's law syndrome is based on a misunderstanding, on deliberate misinformation. ReChem has been under constant attack since 1980, but in all that time, its standards of safety have been in line with current knowledge and understanding. As I said, it has been working closely with HMIP. We have already heard that the company has spent £1 million on keeping in tune with current knowledge and understanding.

Mr. Llew Smith: Will the hon. Lady accept that if the ReChem plant in Torfaen is as efficient and its technology as adequate as she implies, HMIP would not have come to the conclusion that the incinerator design is inadequate and unless it is improved, it is unlikely to receive approval under the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Gentleman seems to be forgetting that we have announced a £2·5 million project on updating equipment. That is surely better news than doing nothing at all. The hon. Gentleman is being unfairly critical, for political purposes.

Mr. Michael: Surely the fact that a company like ReChem, which is not particularly generous with its capital investment, will have to spend £2·5 million to try to get in line with current environmental policy is proof that, in the past, its environmental policies were appalling?

Lady Olga Maitland: Absolute nonsense. It is proof that it has been willing to co-operate with HMIP and to provide the best possible service for the community, and not just for Wales but for the country as a whole.

Mr. Michael: Will the hon. Lady explain how she can say that with such confidence, in view of the fact that, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and myself, the salient point about the proposed investment is that information on the reasons for it, and on the way in which it will be directed, is not in the public arena? That is one reason why the inquiry is needed. The hon. Lady does not seem to understand the issue at stake.

Lady Olga Maitland: I think that the findings will come out in the report by the university of East Anglia. The Opposition have a dog-in-the-manger attitude, saying, "We do not want ReChem's plant to operate efficiently, or at all, in our area." I ask them what kind of alternatives they really want. Do they want countries such as those of eastern Europe where, without effective waste disposal systems, there are dying rivers, high rates of diseases, trees withering and children playing on untreated dangerous dumps? Why do they not go to eastern Europe, look at the


damage there and accept that we have fulfilled a moral responsibility in permitting effective incineration of hazardous waste for the good of all mankind?

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady answer a straightforward question? Does she support the import of toxic waste from developed countries into this country if those countries have the technological capacity to deal with that waste themselves? If she does not, she should support the argument that companies such as ReChem should not process imported wastes from developed countries.

Lady Olga Maitland: I support the import of hazardous waste from other countries until such time as they have their own plants to treat their waste.

Mr. Hughes: Even if those countries are developed?

Lady Olga Maitland: All developed countries do not necessarily have the mechanisms to deal effectively with hazardous waste.

Mr. Ainger: Is the hon. Lady not aware that Sweden, which has its own incinerator, decided that incineration was a not a safe way to dispose of PCBs, so it exported them to Pontypool? Is she not aware, also, that the 1,500 tonnes of waste from the St. Basile-le-Grand fire was destined for an incinerator at Swan Lake in Onatrio, but that the Quebec Government demanded earlier disposal of the PCBs, which is why there was an attempt to secure a contract with ReChem? Does the hon. Lady accept that although several developed countries already have incinerators, they still export waste to Pontypool because it is cheaper?

Lady Olga Maitland: I welcome the fact that Sweden decided to send its waste over here, because Sweden did not have the right facilities. ReChem is one of the few companies in the world which can deal with the high incineration of noxious wastes—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may laugh at that, but it is true.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that although much is being said today about massive imports of toxic wastes into this country, 95 per cent. of such waste treated is home produced?

Lady Olga Maitland: As I said earlier, that is true. What do the Opposition want to do? Do they want to export hazardous wastes elsewhere although we have an expert company in this country? The Opposition are carrying out excellent scaremongering tactics for their political ends. It is one thing to have a responsible concern for the environment, but it is another to start frightening people.

Mr. Michael: This is one of the most outrageous speeches that I have ever heard since I entered the House—and it is being made by a Member who seems not to understand the issues. Is the hon. Lady accusing her hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), all the elected representatives and all the community groups, of wanting simply to raise concerns for their own reasons? Clearly that is untrue, as anyone who has considered the issues knows. My hon. Friend introduced the debate because of the concern of people in his constituency, and his concern for them. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that fact.

Lady Olga Maitland: I do not consider that the Opposition have a monopoly of care and concern for the environment and for the treatment of hazardous waste. We all share their care and concern. Perhaps we take a more responsible attitude in ensuring that hazardous waste is dealt with properly and expertly.

Mr. Thomason: Does my hon. Friend agree that in terms of developing plant abroad and the spread of technology, ReChem should be congratulated on its joint venture in Italy to develop processing facilities there?

Lady Olga Maitland: I, too, congratulate ReChem on having the imagination to develop a joint project with the Italians. I understand that it is seeking to help other countries to develop their own incinerator plants. That means that even less hazardous waste will come into the United Kingdom.
Although ReChem has been so heavily criticised by the Opposition, it has recently been presented with three silver Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents health and safety awards. That hardly comes into tune with your own allegations that it is falling down on safety.
I move on to the next spurious line, where you are trying to suggest—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may refer to the Opposition, to hon. Members or to hon. Gentlemen. "You" and "your" are not permissible words in the Chamber.

Lady Olga Maitland: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I fear that it is taking me some time to get the hang of these conventions.
I move on to the arguments that the Opposition have been raising on PCBs. It strikes me that, again, they are scaremongering. It is true that PCBs are noxious materials. It is true also that they have been around since 1929. They have left good marks, as it were, as well as a residue. It is important to ensure that PCBs are handled properly. They can be disposed of only at a high incineration level.

Mr. Llew Smith: I accept the hon. Lady's argument that if we are to incinerate PCBs we must do so at the highest possible incineration level. Will she tell me whether ReChem can reach the destruction level which the European Commission is suggesting? Perhaps she can tell us what that level is.

Lady Olga Maitland: I am sure that the incineration levels which ReChem operates will appear in the report by the university of East Anglia.
Opposition Members give the impression that PCBs should be left untreated. Is that the alternative? That would mean indefinite storage, and that would present major problems. Included among them would he environmental contamination. I hardly believe that the Opposition would want that.

Mr. Llew Smith: We have a quaint tradition in south Wales. It is that when people pose questions we normally answer them. Will the hon. Lady follow that tradition and answer my question?

Lady Olga Maitland: I shall pass over that one.

Mr. Michael: That is in good Conservative tradition.

Lady Olga Maitland: Some Opposition arguments are good examples of scaremongering. Opposition Members


referred to the Californian guidelines and suggested that various utensils at ReChem have been contaminated to a level that is 400 times over the limit. Reference was made to a kettle, a telephone, a sweat band and a door. If the guidelines are in such common use, why is it that they are not part of the reference material that will be considered by the university of East Anglia? The Opposition have selected guidelines that suit them.
A public inquiry is unnecessary. What possible purpose would it serve when a report is being compiled? Such inquiries are used to establish facts that are not already available, but on this issue the facts are available. The Opposition imply that there is a cover-up, but there is no evidence of that. Anyone can visit the ReChem establishment at any time, and the company has a free and relaxed relationship with the inspectorate of pollution. There is no question of the company's holding back.
We must retain a proper and responsible attitude to the disposal of hazardous waste. It is irresponsible to put our heads in the sand. Simply because we do not like noxious waste we cannot ignore it and it must be handled properly. ReChem can do that expertly with high incineration. It is irresponsible to try to knock ReChem. It provides a service not just for the people of Wales but for all the people of Britain.
I believe in looking after the interests of mankind. We have the benefits of the products that produce noxious waste but we must ensure that the waste is disposed of in a responsible manner. That is what is happening.

Dr. Kim Howells: I am sure that many of us have experienced the problems of trying to get the facts about companies such as ReChem. The Minister and I are the only two people in the Chamber who served on the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs that examined ReChem. We were supplied with all the information that we asked for and we discovered that serious problems perceived by the community could not be addressed by the Committee. We felt it necessary to look for expert outside help and the Committee was split on whether to call for a public inquiry.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the recommendation in the Select Committee report for a survey was agreed by all its members? I do not see a minority report.

Mr. Howells: That is correct. The Minister will recall that there was a vigorous discussion about whether to issue a minority report and in the end a compromise was accepted.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Paragraph 16 of the reports says that the evidence so far gathered about environmental pollution caused by the ReChem incinerator does not prove that the plant is a serious public health risk, although there are grounds for concern. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that conclusion was unanimous?

Dr. Howell: That is correct. We all agreed to that report.
I shall try to put the matter in context. We have had flights of fantasy and comparisons with eastern Europe. Many of us in Wales are worried not simply about

ReChem but about incinerators everywhere. We found that ReChem was by no means the worst offender in polluting and that many other companies performed rather less well. For example, hospital incinerators, with which serious problems still exist, are immune from the examination to which ReChem was subjected.
However, that does not mean that we should simply say that, compared to some hospital managements, ReChem has had a reasonably responsible attitude, so we should not investigate it further. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) agree with that, because I should hope that as most hon. Members who have spoken in this debate represent Welsh constituencies, we would all be concerned about the health of people in Wales.
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, Wales has processed difficult materials. The smelter plants in the Swansea valley poison an entire environment. The coke ovens such as those in my constituency now cause serious environmental problems, as do many chemical plants. They blight people's lives and the days are long gone when local authorities should be allowed to grant planning permission with impunity. Although the applications may conform to the HMIP criteria on emissions, because of the stench and noise emitted from the plant and many other factors—even a community's fear about a plant—planning committees must look much more carefully than they have in the past before granting planning permission in those circumstances.
It was clear to the Select Committee and many other bodies that have examined ReChem that the company suffered from the old Welsh planning disease. It was allowed to set up in a totally unsuitable environment. That has happened time and time again. It happened in the Curm-Beddau plant in the Aberdare valley and in the Purolite plant in my constituency.
It has been said that no political party has a monopoly on care. No political party has a monopoly on good planning decisions either. I have had many battles with Labour-controlled authorities about appalling planning decisions. A few more will be conducted in this House over a famous Bill that is now under discussion—

Mr. Jonathan Evans: The barrage.

Dr. Howells: Yes, the barrage.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Monmouth and my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) have similar experiences to mine in representing constituents, in the maze that constitutes the environmental inspectorates. I tramped from office to office in an attempt to get some sense out of the authorities about the problems associated with the chemical plants in my constituency. I went through the same processes as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen did in trying to get at the truth behind ReChem. I went to the HMIP, which told me that it was responsible for emissions as far as the factory gates, but, once they went beyond the factory fence, they were no longer its responsibility.

Mr. Thomason: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government's introduction of the Environmental Protection Agency will deal with many of the problems to which he has referred and will introduce a more unified approach to the difficulties?

Dr. Howells: Yes, it constituted almost two pages of the Conservative party manifesto, but we have still seen nothing come out of it. The hon. Gentleman will know that there has been an interesting and fierce interdepartmental row because the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is trying to steal part of the responsibility that is currently held by the Department of the Environment through the National Rivers Authority. I should like to see HMIP certificates issued with impunity, as that cannot be done at present.
As I am sure that the Minister, who was a member of the Committee, will agree that if anything came out of the examination, it was a sense of bewilderment at the incompetence of HMIP. There was such chaos that the poor man who headed HMIP at the time committed suicide. It is a dreadful state of affairs and it has taken the Government far too long to come to terms with it and to put it right.
When will the integrated policy take effect? At present it has not taken effect. If one wants to find out how to clean up ReChem, one goes first to HMIP. It says that it has certain responsibilities. One then goes to the National Rivers Authority, which says that it has responsibility for aqueous discharges and is very worried about them. One goes to the local authority environmental health department which says, "Sorry, we cannot do much about this because we do not have the funding. We do not have time to put people on to things like this." The environmental health departments have responsibility for ensuring that the general level of environmental health is secure. All too often, they are the most disappointing departments of all. They should be the motor department in ensuring that all environmental matters are brought together, but they are not. One then goes to the county council, but its ability to influence matters is even more limited than that of the district authorities.
Finally, one can turn up at the Minister's door, as I have done. One can write endless letters to the Minister. The Minister refers people back to the myriad agencies to which they have tramped in the past couple of months trying to find an answer. It is a maze and a disgrace.
I will not bother to address the nonsense spoken by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). She said that we were all on the level of some apparatchik in Warsaw. I have seen the results of the destruction in eastern Europe and it is not a matter which should be approached trivially or made fun of, or compared with the position in south Wales. We care very much for our constituents in south Wales and we will fight as hard as any other right hon. or hon. Members to ensure that the mess we have had to put up with over the years in which our fair country has been raped and continues to be raped by corporations that have not cared one iota about pollution will not happen again.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen on his speech and I hope that he continues with his valiant defence of his constituency.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's peroration, but I feared that if I did not move quickly, I should not get the point in. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) talked about the liaison committee and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) talked about his difficulties in getting answers. A key element is the company itself. Has the hon. Gentleman been able to address himself to the concept of the liaison

committee, which appears not to be functioning? Similar liaison committees function in Fawley and Essex. The natures of the waste may not be identical, but one case may be used as leverage in another if one can discuss the matter openly and frankly.

Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because it is important. In my constituency I try to encourage the liaison committees even though there has been long and terrible hostility. Sometimes such committees work; sometimes they do not. At the last count, there were 15 action committees in my constituency and most of them were not involved in liaison committees. Where there is sufficient trust to build up a liaison relationship, such committees can be important and constructive in helping to resolve matters. They cannot always happen and that is why we are debating the issue in the House. A liaison committee has not happened because there is not sufficient trust. Perhaps as a result of the company's reluctance to indulge in open debate in the past, it will not take part in such a committee.
I made a rather flippant intervention in which I said that ReChem would sue a woodpile on the chance that there was a snake in it. ReChem is extremely litigious so it can be dangerous for ordinary people to try to debate the issue outside. I know that good work has been done by, for example, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Evans) in environmental matters. I hope that he will not associate himself with what sounds like a series of apologies for ReChem. I hope that the messages which are even now travelling back and forth between civil servants and the Minister do not suggest to anyone watching our proceedings that the Welsh Office is seeking to provide some kind of statistical apology for ReChem.
We want the answers and we want what is happening to be in the open. The best way of ensuring that it is in the open is by a proper public inquiry. What on earth do the company or the Welsh Office have to lose by that? The Welsh people, at any rate, have a great deal to gain.

Mr. Walter Sweeney: The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) spoke eloquently of the concerns felt by many of his constituents, and my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) has said that his constituents are similarly concerned. We must not, however, allow our objectivity to be clouded by our emotions on this issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) for the way in which she expressed herself today.
If the hon. Member for Torfaen had opposed rather than supported or condoned the failure of Torfaen borough council to set up a liaison committee, many of the public's fears might have been allayed by now. We are dealing with a very dangerous substance indeed and, so far as scientific knowledge is aware, the best way of disposing of it is through properly controlled and monitored high-temperature incineration. That is what is happening at the ReChem plant and the efficiency of the plant in destroying the material is more than 99·9999 per cent.

Mr. Flynn: If the incinerator is working efficiently, how was it possible for "Newsnight" to discover on the tip used by ReChem capacitors that had been imperfectly burned and contained large quantities of PCBs and dioxins? There


is only one firm in the whole of Britain that burns capacitors contaminated with PCBs. If its incinerator was working efficiently, how on earth could that happen?

Mr. Sweeney: The hon. Gentleman should view such specific fears in the context of the history of the plant at Pontypool. The plant was commissioned in 1974, and, as is often the case with plants dealing with dangerous chemicals—

Mr. Llew Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, if ReChem's destruction efficiency is 99·9999 per cent., that still does not bring it up to the levels that the European Commission will be proposing?

Mr. Sweeney: I do not know what the European Commission will be proposing. I only know that 99·9999 per cent. is a very high percentage indeed.
The plant was commissioned in 1974 and, as is normally the case with such plants, there were public concerns from the outset. In 1979, following allegations from residents about alleged atmospheric discharges Torfaen borough council commissioned the Porton Down chemical defence establishment to carry out an atmospheric pollution survey. That was done, and the results showed no particular cause for concern. In 1985, following similar allegations at the ReChem plant in Bonnybridge in Scotland, reports were published, for both Scotland and Wales, showing that nothing abnormal had been detected. Further work was commissioned from Professor Lawrence on the incidence of neural tube defect—

Mr. Ainger: I understand that the Bonnybridge plant, formerly run by ReChem, was closed down before a public inquiry could be held into the operations of the plant and the pollution that it has caused. The hon. Gentleman should not cite Bonnybridge as an example.

Mr. Sweeney: I referred to it because the inquiry showed that there was nothing abnormal at the plant.
In 1985, there were new demands for a public inquiry into the plant at Pontypool—

Mr. Ainger: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman again because I am at a loss to understand his argument. He refers to an inquiry into Bonnybridge not finding anything. There was no inquiry. The plant closed because it was polluting the glems and valleys of Scotland.

Mr. Sweeney: I am not talking about a public inquiry but about a report that was presented in 1985.
In 1987, new flue gas technology was introduced at the ReChem plant and that resulted in a significant improvement in pollution control. In 1987, there was a Crown court case in which Torfaen borough took ReChem to court, and it was ruled that there was no case to answer on charges of smell and fume nuisance. Perhaps predictably, demands for a public inquiry continued to be made.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will recall my earlier remarks about the learned judge at the end of that case saying that, in his view, there could be a public inquiry.

Mr. Sweeney: There could still be a public inquiry, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr.

Evans) pointed out, such an inquiry would be premature now. It might be appropriate at the end of the year, if evidence appeared to justify an inquiry but this debate is taking place today.
Between 1989 and 1990, there was a special inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and in August 1990 the Secretary of State for Wales commissioned an independent study by the university of East Anglia into PCB levels in the Panteg area of Pontypool. An improvement notice was served in May 1991 and further improvement notices were served in April of this year. When those notices have been complied with, the plant will be the safest and most efficient of its kind in Britain.

Mr. Flynn: Those who have been following the issue for years and have read all the reports will recognise the phrase that the hon. Gentleman just used, about it being the safest and most efficient plant. The phrase was used in 1975, 1979, 1981 and in 1987. It has always been claimed to be the safest. Will the hon. Gentleman reflect that his information about, and knowledge of, the plant does not even extend to pronouncing the name of the plant correctly? He keeps referring to it as "Recam." He might reconsider his speech and decide to finish it now.

Mr. Sweeney: I apologise for my poor Welsh pronunciation—[Interruption.] The motion is inappropriate and I shall oppose it.

Mr. Nick Ainger: I shall try to confine my remarks to the issue, especially to the Transfrontier Shipment of Hazardous Waste Regulations 1988, which are relevant to the part of the motion on the importation of toxic waste into Wales for so-called disposal at ReChem in Pontypool.
The debate could be described as a curate's egg. Excellent speeches were made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and—unfortunately, he is not present to hear my compliment—the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). The speeches of the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) and for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) were probably the worst that I have heard since becoming a Member a few months ago. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West was deliberately filibustering on an issue that is important to Wales. The fact that he is now a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs made that even more appalling.
The major issue of the importation of toxic waste into Wales came to a head in 1989. The previous August, at St. Basile-le-Grand on the St. Lawrence seaway, 1,500 tonnes of PCBs that had been stored in a warehouse went up in smoke and, unfortunately, came down in a form of dioxin. The town had to be evacuated for up to three weeks; 3,200 people had to be evacuated; and an area of 14 sq km was covered in dioxins.
That prompted the Canadian Government to act. Unfortunately, the only incinerator in Canada, at Swan Lake, was chock-a-block with PCBs from North America generally. Therefore the Quebec Government, in an election year, decided to get rid of the PCBs that were stored in the warehouse.
At the time, I was a county councillor representing Pembroke Dock. There was a possibility of those 1,500 tonnes of PCBs, which were destined for ReChem, being


imported through Pembroke. We formed an action committee and believed that we had successfully persuaded the port operator and his customers not to sign any contract with the Quebec Government or ReChem.
The problem that we encountered in Pembroke Dock highlighted for us, and now for the whole country, the inadequacy of the transfrontier shipment regulations. A consigner will find a company—in our case, ReChem—that is willing to dispose of PCBs or other toxic waste. The company signs the form saying, "Yes, I am willing to accept a consignment of toxic waste" and the local disposal authority signs to show that it is willing to accept the shipment. Under the regulations, the only other authority that must be informed is the waste disposal authority at the port of import. The documents must travel with the shipment from, in this instance, Canada to Pontypool.
I discussed with the harbour master and general manager of Milford Haven port authority their fears and concerns about the beginning of the trade in the importation of toxic waste. I also had discussions with the fire brigade and the local district council in its capacity as the waste disposal authority. All expressed grave concern and believed that the facilities then available at the port were not suitable for handling toxic waste. However, under the regulations they could not oppose the importation. The harbour master could stop the shipment coming in only if the ship or its cargo would provide a safety hazard to shipping in the harbour. The waste disposal authority, South Pembrokeshire district council, could not object because it was merely on the route to the ultimate point of disposal at ReChem.
What staggered me was that only 12 months previously the same toxic product had caused the evacuation of a town of 3,200 people and had contaminated 14 sq km of land, yet there was not a requirement to inform the fire brigade, the police or the health authority that such a consignment would be passing through the pretty district of South Pembrokeshire. It was then to travel along the A477, meeting up with the A40 in the district of Carmarthen, yet neither the fire brigade nor the local police had to be informed. It would then have proceeded along the M4, passing through Llanelli. Again, the authorities there would not be aware of it. It would go on to Lliw valley, Swansea and all along the M4 to Pontypool. The only people who would have been aware that it was on its way would have been the waste authority in Pontypool, Torfaen district council and ReChem. What nonsense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) told us how Cardiff city council discovered by mistake that PCBs were travelling through Cardiff and being held in a siding. Surely if we are concerned about transport safety—we all know from driving on our motorways that lorries catch fire and accidents happen—the Government should first insist that each of the 17 ports that my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen mentioned were importing toxic wastes and directing it down to Pontypool should inform district, health, police and fire brigade authorities on the route that at a certain time on a certain day PCBs will be travelling through their area, in case an accident happens or a fire breaks out. Surely that would be the first step that a sensible, reasonable Government would take.
Torfaen district council as a receiving waste authority could not inform Carmarthen district council, Dyfed

Powys police, Dyfed fire brigade or any of the other relevant authorities on the route to Pontypool because of commercial confidentiality. Mr. David Thomas, who is responsible for environmental health, and therefore ultimately responsible in law for the transfrontier shipment regulations, was prevented from informing even his own members. He would have faced an injunction if he so much as told the chief constable of Dyfed Powys police or the chief fire officer of the Dyfed county council.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I was a county councillor for six years before coming to the House. To my knowledge the county councillor operating with the emergency services, whether the ambulance service or the fire brigade, and with the district council had to have emergency plans ready for every eventuality. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that perhaps he is creating fear where there should be none?

Mr. Ainger: No. I am suggesting that emergency plans should be made available. That is what the chief fire officer, the chief constable and health authority officials have told me. They cannot plan for something if they do not know that they will have to deal with it. PCBs are carried on our motorways and railways through areas where no emergency plans have been made to deal with an accident. Those areas have been given no opportunity to make plans. The reason is that the law does not require that information to be given to the relevant authorities. It may be slightly remiss of the regulations that they do not provide for that information to be given to the relevant authorities, but with common sense and good will the problem could be overcome—that is, if the final disposal authority informed all the other relevant authorities on the route to be taken by the waste that it would be coming through their areas on a certain day. They cannot do so, however, because of commercial confidentiality. ReChem says, "If you give prior notice that a shipment of PCBs is coming from Canada, Sweden, Germany or Italy it will give our competitors the chance to come in and undercut us." That argument was put to Mr. David Thomas.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend accept that information that is refused to the general public in Britain about the incineration industry is readily available in the United States? If one goes to any library in the United States one can obtain that information from the computer. Unlike Britain, the United States has a freedom of information Act.

Mr. Ainger: I agree. That is another reason why we import PCBs from the United States. The freedom of information Act in the United States and all its other environmental controls mean that it is more expensive for American companies to dispose of PCBs in the United States than to ship them 3,000 miles and transport them by road into Pontypool. That is why there has been a significant increase in imports of PCBs.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am perplexed by the hon. Gentleman's point about emergency plans. A county council is obliged to make plans to deal with emergencies. The hon. Gentleman would like specific details to be given about shipments, or lorry or train journeys, but is he suggesting that Gwent county council has no emergency plans to deal with any incident?

Mr. Ainger: I cannot comment on Gwent county council. I am referring to the transport of toxic waste from


the ports to Pontypool and specifically to Dyfed county council. I am still a member of Dyfed county council's public protection committee. It certainly has no emergency plans to deal with a fire on a lorry that is carrying PCBs. I doubt whether Hereford county council, Gwent county council or any other county council has plans of that nature.

Mr. Thomason: The hon. Gentleman has laid considerable emphasis on the importation of toxic waste from the United States. Does he agree that in a written answer on 21 November 1991 the Minister gave a list of countries that export toxic waste to this country and that the United States did not appear on that list?

Mr. Ainger: I accept that in 1988 and 1989 some of the PCBs that were stored at St. Basile-le-Grand in Canada were of American origin.

Mr. Michael: An attempt is being made to distract my hon. Friend from making his point, but he is absolutely right to say that the relevant authorities do not have information about the transportation of toxic waste. I gave details earlier of an occasion when it became known to the environmental health officer in my constituency that a consignment was on its way to Torfaen via my constituency. That information came to the attention of the relevant officer only because the company concerned communicated it by accident.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) obtained information about an accident in his constituency involving nuclear material via a question about Gwent asked by an elected representative in the United States. My hon. Friend makes the point that if one does not have the relevant information, one cannot plan.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My understanding is that interventions are meant to be short, and not turn into speeches. A statement to that effect was made from the Chair earlier today.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's guidance, but I make the decisions. Had you finished, Mr. Michael?

Mr. Michael: I had, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that neither you nor I needed the hon. Gentleman's correction.

Mr. Ainger: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
My constituency has three large refineries and one power station—all covered by the Control of Industrial Major Accident Hazards Regulations 1984. Perhaps the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was referring to emergency plans of that kind, which local authorities and commercial interests—which are the refineries in our case—must develop by law. They include evacuation procedures, table-top exercises, and so on.
It is staggering that ReChem is importing and, for short periods, storing hundreds of tonnes of PCBs. I described the fire in Canada, in which 14,000 sq km of land was contaminated. After all this time, and despite the many complaints made by my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and myself, the district council, and the good citizens of Torfaen and Pontypool, the Government do not even apply the CIMAH regulations to ReChem's plant. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will explain why that is so.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was not in her place when I made my earlier comments, so I shall repeat them now that she is present. She made an absolutely appalling speech. She suggested that this side of the House—including the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—wanted the end of all incineration and to see ReChem swept from the face of Wales. No Opposition Member made such a statement.
We want proper pollution controls and a high-tech approach to inceration that maintains the correct temperature. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam may not have seen various documentaries and newsreels about ReChem, but I can tell her how the furnace there operates. It is a single-chamber furnace. When the doors are opened, a forklift truck loaded with four 45-gallon barrels literally tips itself into the chamber of the furnace. As anyone who has ever used a coal fire will know, when one slings on a shovel of coal the temperature immediately drops. That is why Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is extremely concerned. That has come too late in my opinion. HMIP should have taken an interest from the word go, when PCBs first started being burned at ReChem.

Mr. Thomason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as part of the £2·5 million investment that ReChem is undertaking in this plant, it is installing a new system of loading the incinerator via air-locked doors and enclosing the de-ashing operation so that his criticisms will be a problem of the past? Does he welcome that?

Mr. Ainger: I welcome it as an improvement, but other experts have said that there is a need for a mobile bed as well. Furthermore, there should also be an afterburner so that gases pass through a certain temperature before going up the flue.
Having had a bludgeoning from the local populace and after HMIP had finally started to flex its muscles, ReChem is starting to do something. I welcome that, but it does not go far enough. That is where a public inquiry could bring expert scientific and engineering opinion to bear on the issue of the furnace and the flue, where the problem lies.

Mr. Llew Smith: Does my hon. Friend agree that quite a number of learned people believe that part of the problem with ReChem's Pontypool plant is not the incinerator but the method and technology used in handling, for example, transformers before they go into it?

Mr. Ainger: I agree with my hon. Friend. We need the expert opinion, not just in the way suggested by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, to check after the event to see what pollution has been caused but about what is going on in a furnace from both the chemical and engineering point of view. That is why Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Monmouth, although I did not quite catch his argument, should realise that monitoring is only the beginning. One can go much further and monitor certain things. Continuous monitoring, although difficult to achieve, is better than intermittent monitoring of flue gas emissions, because one can miss times when the temperature drops and dioxins come out.
There are various problems, but the answer is to have the right technology in the furnace and in the base of the flue to ensure that whenever PCBs are being burnt in the furnace, they are burnt at the correct temperature. Perhaps, once that investment has been made, and


technically the ReChem plant at Pontypool is not a potential hazard to its citizens, we shall start to see a realistic pricing for the incineration of PCBs and can decide whether a proper investment has been made. We may then see, purely from the commercial point of view, a reduction in the amount of imported PCBs. I think that that will take an awfully long time. Today, throughout the motorways and railways of Great Britain, crossing the channel on ferries, coming in from North America, hundreds of tonnes are travelling around the globe.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Cantral, who has unfortunately left the Chamber, spoke about the dolphin that was washed up on the Cardigan bay coast. The only way that Ceridigion district council could dispose of that was to treat the body of the baby dolphin as toxic waste. It was so heavily contaminated that it could not be buried. That shows the problems, particularly of those animals—including, I suppose, us—that are at the end of the food chain of the effect of PCBs. I thoroughly appreciate the problems and fears of the people of Pontypool, knowing that there is a possibility of dioxin.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is no longer here, but I used to live in his constituency, where the Coalite plant has been spewing out dioxins into the atmosphere, both terrestrial and marine, in an appalling manner. My parents still live in that area, and some people there believe that they have developed chloracne and various other skin problems as a direct result of emissions from the plant. The debate is not just scaremongering, as some hon. Members have suggested. There is hard evidence about the effects of emissions, especially of dioxin, on human life.
The call for a public inquiry is extremely sensible. It would give an opportunity for the technical arguments about the plant, the furnace and the lower flue to be properly considered. However, the answer to the world's problems over the transportation of toxic waste would be for this country immediately to say, "Enough is enough. You, Sweden, may not consider your technology perfect, but it is only as good as ours. Clean up your own doorstep." We could say the same to Canada, Italy, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal and Australia. We could tell them that they have the technology, or that they could buy it off the shelf, perhaps from ReChem. I understand that the company has already gone into partnership with Italians. Why does that not happen in Australia, Germany and everywhere else? Why do we not invest abroad? That may sound funny coming from the Labour party, but that is what ReChem should do, if it has the expertise. I hope, however, that the company does not try to export the type of plant which it currently operates at Pontypool because, as has already been said, it would not get away with that anywhere else.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): We have had an important and wide-ranging debate. As the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) has just reminded us, there was an intervention from the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). There have been some dubious points of order and there has been some bad temper. I was disappointed by the suggestion by the hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) that we should truncate this important debate to

allow other motions to be taken. I am pleased that my hon. Friends have not given way to Opposition pressure. This is an important matter for Wales, and it is right that we have had a full debate on it.
The substance of the concern was established by the two local Members of Parliament. The debate was introduced by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) who was immediately followed and to a large extent echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans), whose constituency is immediately adjacent to the ReChem plant. My hon. Friend's speech was perhaps more moderate and measured, but I was struck by the considerable agreement between him and the hon. Member for Torfaen, except on the question of a public inquiry. My hon. Friend argued that that was not yet necessary.
Wearing his other hat as a member of the European Parliament, the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) also has a constituency interest. There was also a substantial contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), and there were substantial speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland), for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd) and for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Sweeney). We also heard from the hon. Members for Pembroke (Mr. Ainger) and for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells)—as usual, he spoke with great passion—and from the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who summarised his speech at the outset by saying that he would ask four questions. I hope that I shall be able to answer those questions in full.
It is important to make it clear that facilities in Wales have an important role to play in the waste disposal industry in this country. However, Wales is definitely not at the heart of the international disposal industry, as some people would have us believe. Wales should not be regarded as a dumping ground for other people's waste. It may surprise some people to learn that Wales is not even at the centre of the United Kingdom's trade in waste disposal. The simple facts are that since 1988, when detailed record keeping on the importation of hazardous waste began, the total hazardous waste disposed of in Wales was up to 11,000 tonnes per annum, whereas in the same period total United Kingdom imports were up to 51,000 tonnes. The total amount of waste imported into the United Kingdom may seem large, but the figures that I have mentioned represent only about 2 per cent. of special/hazardous waste arising here. Imported waste that is disposed of in Wales by ReChem at Pontypool is very much less than that. In fact, it is 0·5 per cent.

Mr. Murphy: I remind the Minister that paramount in our debate has been the emphasis put on PCBs. Is it not right that ReChem is by far the most significant processor of PCBs, and that it is PCBs which cause controversy?

Mr. Jones: The point about PCBs is well taken, and I hope that I shall be covering it fully in a moment.
It is also important to remember—it is a point that many conveniently overlook—that of the 90,000 tonnes of indigenous special/hazardous waste arising in Wales in 1990–91, only 22,500 tonnes is disposed of in Wales, so even taken with the 7,000 tonnes of hazardous waste imported for disposal in Wales in that year, the simple fact is that Wales is a considerable net exporter of hazardous waste and not the massive importer some would have us


believe. The figures are not in any way kept secret as relevant details of special/hazardous waste arising in Wales and of hazardous waste imports are published annually by the Welsh Office in the "Environmental Digest for Wales".
The motion calls specifically for a ban on the importation of waste into Wales, but the hon. Member for Torfaen will realise, I am sure, that to ban waste from entering Wales unilaterally is both an impractical and unrealistic objective. How can we in Wales, as part of the United Kingdom, possibly introduce such a ban, and what would happen to those indigenous wastes if a similar ban was imposed at Offa's dyke by the Secretary of State for the Environment on waste being imported into England from Wales? Not only do we need them more than they need us but the concept is fatally flawed and, frankly, preposterous, as hon. Members will surely appreciate.
The question of waste movement and the commercial trade in the disposal of waste needs to be addressed not at a Wales level, as the specific terms of the motion implies, or even at a United Kingdom level, but internationally. The Government believe that the subject can be sensibly and adequately addressed on the international stage only in consultation with other Governments, and there are numerous positive developments which I shall cover in just a moment.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister is reading a most informative brief, but he is doing so at such speed that we simple country boys cannot understand it. Will you advise the hon. Gentleman to slow down, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that the Minister heard what the hon. Member said.

Mr. Jones: I know that the hon. Gentleman is not as simple as he pretends.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the Minister will take the opportunity to pause, draw breath and deliver his speech in a way that will enable us to understand it.
The Minister seemed to suggest that the matters that we are debating should be dealt with entirely at international level. Does he accept—this is a point that has been made seriously, as have many others—that there is a need to know about emergency procedures and environmental health issues? Will he take up the issue of providing information to relevant authorities, including the movement of PCBs, so that such matters can be dealt with properly by the appropriate authorities?

Mr. Jones: I shall come to that very matter.
I must proceed rather strongly because I have much important ground to cover. There are matters that I should place on the record in response to an extremely important debate. I recall that two Labour Members were rising in their places in seeking to be called to speak in the debate. At least three of my hon. Friends are in that position. Those hon. Members have not been called and I should like to allow them time to make their contributions. I must press on.

Mr. Michael: rose—

Mr. Jones: I shall come to the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised.

Mr. Michael: The Minister is fully aware that Opposition Members were encouraged to be disciplined and brief, which they were, so that the debate could come to an end in good time and the Minister would have plenty of time to respond to it. It was even thought that another debate could take place. I hope that the Minister will not suggest that there is a constraint on him that arises because of the activities of Opposition Members. I think that he should have a word with the Government Whips and with Conservative Back-Bench Members if he has any complaint.

Mr. Jones: At the risk of—

Mr. Colin Shepherd: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a little ripe that those remarks should come from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench and who spoke for 25 minutes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was that a point of order?

Mr. Shepherd: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it was. It was a request for guidance from the Chair.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is right, it was not a point of order from Mr. Michael. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that he had a point of order, but perhaps he had not.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: I do. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth to complain about the length of speeches when he indulged in a speech that lasted 25 minutes?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely in order, but whether the Government want to respond to it is another matter.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am tempted to respond. The hon. Member for Torfaen spoke for more than half an hour and the hon. Members for Bleanau Gwent and for Pembroke each spoke for about 24 minutes. That certainly confounds the prediction that the debate would be concluded early. It would be wrong for me to give way again because, if I do, the debate will not be properly concluded.
Even though United Kingdom facilities are able to deal with imported waste sufficiently and we have an effective regulatory regime to control the movement and disposal of hazardous waste, the Government firmly believe that the international movement of waste for disposal should be minimised. In particular, we believe that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in the final disposal of waste and dispose of their own waste arisings.
We also think that in principle imports of such waste should continue in respect of developing countries which, for the foreseeable future, are not able to deal with such waste in a manner that is not detrimental to the environment. That position is reflected in international legislation, including an OECD decision recommendation of 1991 and the United Nations Environment Programme Basle convention.
Our position must be right because a total ban of the trade in hazardous waste, as proposed in the motion, would be ill-judged and irresponsible. It could lead to illegal or environmentally unsound dumping on land in the country of origin or at sea. That would be the worst of all crimes against the environment. The Government stance on this matter has been made clear on numerous occasions and there is reference to it in the environment White Paper "This Common Inheritance". My hon. Friend the


Under-Secretary of State for the Environment outlined the Government's policy to the House in response to the Adjournment debate by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 22 May.
The Government's position is underpinned by the international negotiations that are taking place in the European Community under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
The Government's deliberations need to be considered against the relevant international conventions and agreements. The Basle convention came into force on 5 May this year. The convention is a significant global advance in waste management and the Government fully support it. The United Kingdom signed the convention in 1989 and has pushed for the earliest possible implementation of its provisions within the European Community so that we can ratify it as quickly as possible. To implement the convention and to deal with other concerns about waste movements of all kinds, the European Commission has proposed a new regulation which will apply to all shipments within, into and out of the Community, with the exception of non-hazardous wastes moving for recovery. That will also deal with the question of imports of non-hazardous wastes, quantities of which have entered Wales for disposal in the past at sites in west Glamorgan and Clwyd.
The regulation is likely to lead to a ban on all imports of waste from developed countries outside the European Community and EFTA for disposal in the Community, as well as providing for more control over imports from the rest of the EC and EFTA. Waste would be accepted from developing countries only if they were able to persuade the Community that they were unable to acquire the necessary facilities of their own to allow them to dispose of wastes in an environmentally sound manner.
This draft regulation on the supervision and control of shipments within, into and out of the Community will enable the United Kingdom and other EC member states to ratify Basle. It will fully implement the main Basle control—the prior informed consent procedure. Despite considerable pressure to reach agreement at the Council of Ministers on 26 May, the regulation has not been agreed. The United Kingdom will make every effort to secure agreement under its presidency.

Mr. Murphy: This is an important issue, now that Britain has assumed the presidency of the Community. Will the new regulation allow for bilateral agreements between other developed countries? If it does, that is a serious loophole.

Mr. Jones: We do not wish to proceed to that and I shall shortly touch on the issue.
Currently, about 60 per cent. of United Kingdom imports of hazardous wastes come from the member states. Clearly, we believe that the rest of the Community should develop its own disposal capacity, in line with Community policy on this topic. Movements between member states should be minimised. The United Kingdom wants the regulations to give member states the power to refuse imports from others in the Community, enabling individual member states to move towards self-sufficiency in waste disposal.
The United Kingdom is not alone in that view. We are keen to see the principle adopted to apply to all methods of final disposal, including incineration. However, we are

aware that the possibility of a total ban on imports is unacceptable to some member states that are currently unable to be self-sufficient. Negotiations are continuing.
As I have already said, the United Kingdom will make every effort under our presidency of the Community to reach agreement on the regulation. We can then proceed as quickly as possible to ratify the Basle convention, in company with the rest of the European Community. The current draft of the regulation would severely curtail the import of waste for disposal from outside the Community and EFTA. We do not propose to enter into agreements with developed countries outside those areas that would permit the disposal of their wastes in this country.
The hon. Member for Torfaen and others will be aware that the Government have already demonstrated that they are prepared to take a tough line with Governments of developed countries. We are not, nor will we be, anyone's pushovers.
When the Welsh Office was first approached in the course of the Australian Government's deliberations about whether to grant an export licence for PCB wastes, the Department's response in October 1991 drew attention to the OECD decision recommendations which require member countries to dispose of their wastes appropriately, as far as possible in their own territory. It also indicated that the Australian Government should take that factor into account in their assessment of whether to grant export permits.

Mr. Llew Smith: The Minister mentioned the response of the Welsh Office to the possible export of waste from Australia to Wales. Will he elaborate on the response of the Welsh Office when it was approached to support demands to prevent the import of toxic waste from Canada?

Mr. Jones: For the moment, I shall stay with the example of Australia.
In April 1992, the Australian Government, as a party to the Basle convention, requested a bilateral agreement under article 11 so that wastes could be exported from that country to the United Kingdom despite article 4.5, which requires parties not to send waste to non parties. The hon. Member will know from his correspondence with the Secretary of State on that matter that the Government rejected that request.
In answer to the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, we dealt with the application from Australia in accordance with our policy, and that remains our policy for the consideration of further applications.
Three main authorities are responsible for regulating the ReChem plant—for ensuring that pollution control standards are properly met and enforced, as well as the application of appropriate safety standards. I assure the House that there is no shortage of effective regulation and monitoring in relation to the ReChem plant. There are a number of controls. First, the plant is licensed by Torfaen borough council, which has the duty, under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, to ensure that there is no danger to public health or the water supply as a result of ReChem's operations. The licence contains no fewer than 14 conditions covering the wastes which the company can handle, storage arrangements, general site management and local monitoring.
Secondly, the plant is registered with Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution which is charged with enforcing


on the company the duty to use the best practical means to prevent emission into the atmosphere of noxious or offensive substances. Sampling of emissions undertaken by HMIP and ReChem have consistently shown that the plant is operating to current requirements. During 1991, HMIP undertook 20 inspection visits to the site and had six formal meetings with company staff. So far this year, HMIP has undertaken a further nine inspection visits and five meetings. I quote its figures to underline the degree of HMIP's oversight of ReChem's Pontypool plant; it is rigorous and sustained, and rightly so, given the materials that the plant is handling.
A third set of controls is enforced and monitored by the Health and Safety Executive, whose inspectors ensure that appropriate safety standards apply both for the protection of the work force and for local inhabitants. HSE inspectors have made seven visits to the ReChem site in the past 12 months. I understand that HSE's view is that the plant has a good safety record overall. Management is considered receptive to HSE advice and to have demonstrated a commitment to safety.
In addition to those controls, the liquid waste that ReChem disposes of to the sewer is subject to stringent conditions set in trade effluent agreements between the company and Welsh Water plc. I assure the House that levels of PCBs in the discharge from the Pontypool plant are frequently monitored by Welsh Water. But the monitoring of the trade effluent does not end here. The effluent from the Pontypool plant goes via the sewer to Welsh Water's Ponthir sewage works for treatment. The discharge from Ponthir into the River Usk is closely monitored by the National Rivers Authority. I understand that levels of PCBs in the discharge are consistently extremely low and well within the limits prescribed. As an additional precaution, the NRA regularly monitors for PCBs elsewhere in the river regime and the levels detected have been exceptionally small.
ReChem's operations are monitored and enforced by a number of separate organisations, each with distinct responsibilities for ensuring that the plant conforms with the regulatory requirements and that the environment and public health are protected. This already tough regime will get tougher when incineration processes, such as that operated by ReChem, become subject to the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in the autumn.
The 1990 Act really is a major step forward in the pollution controls operating in this country. Under the Act, the system of integrated pollution control is being progressively phased in for all major potential polluters. The key points are as follows. An operation of a prescribed process requires prior authorisation from HMIP to continue to operate. For the first time, a single authority will control the releases to all three environmental media—air, land and water—via a single authorisation for each process. That seems to be a one-step shop in the operation, which the hon. Member for Pontypridd sought.
All authorisations will be based on the application of best available techniques not entailing excessive costs—BATNEEC—to ensure that releases of prescribed substances are prevented or minimised and to render harmless other emissions. In the case of incineration processes, such as that at ReChem, that position will be supplemented by the concept of best practicable

environmental option to minimise the pollution which may be released to the environment as a whole. All authorisations will be subject to review as technology and techniques improve or as our understanding of the environmental risk develops. Every authorisation issued by HMIP will have to be reviewed at least every four years.
The implementation of integrated pollution control brings an entirely new approach to pollution control, including an in-built dynamic towards higher environmental standards. That is not to imply in the least that the current regulatory basis is inadequate, but simply that integrated pollution control represents an important improvement which will place the pollution control system in the United Kingdom on a par with the best in western Europe.
In common with the integrated pollution control system, the current controls allow for the implementation of higher standards as technology develops. HMIP has been applying this approach over the years at the ReChem Plant and a range of improvements has been effected as a result. I can tell the hon. Member for Torfaen that in April this year, the inspectorate issued two improvement notices on the company under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. These require the installation of a third electrical precipitator to reduce further particulate emissions from the incinerator stack and improvements to the incinerator itself to provide additional safeguards against fugitive emissions resulting from the loading and de-ashing operations. These improvements have to be effected by May 1993 at the latest.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth suggested, HMIP has been quite open about its activities here. It issued a press release on the recent improvement notices and, as required, ensured that copies of the notices were placed on the public register. The company has also responded quickly and positively, and it announced in May its intention to invest £2·5 million in the plant to effect the improvements sought. But it is important to see this action by the pollution inspectorate in the correct light.
The latest improvements at the Pontypool plant are part of a continuing process of upgrading as regulatory standards improve with advances in technology. HMIP is simply requiring the company to apply the latest standards for pollution control, as it is doing at other industrial sites. I understand that HMIP considers that the improvements will enable ReChem International to meet the highest standards of pollution control applying to any chemical waste incinerator currently operating in the United Kingdom. It is obviously important that companies handling toxic materials are properly monitored and regulated. I hope that my description will help reassure the hon. Member for Torfaen that a comprehensive control system is in place.
I shall now refer to the public concerns about the operation of the ReChem plant. There is no doubt that local people, especially those who live in the immediate vicinity of the plant, have been concerned for a number of years. Their concerns have related to a number of different issues, and the Government and the regulatory authorities have taken action to respond to them.
In the mid-1980s there were persistent allegations that the ReChem plant was having harmful effects on public health locally. In response to these concerns, the then Secretary of State for Wales commissioned a review of congenital malformations occurring in Wales between


1974 and 1983, with particular reference to the district of Torfaen. The resulting reports, which were fully published, revealed no evidence of a threat to the health of people living in the vicinity of the ReChem plant. The key results where that for neutral tube defects as a whole, the Torfaen district actually had a consistently lower rate than the average for Wales. Although the Torfaen district was shown to have a higher-than-average incidence of polydactyly, there was no suggestion that this had increased since 1984 when the ReChem incinertor began operating.
In the early 1980s a local farmer also alleged that airborne emissions from the ReChem incinerator were affecting his animals. These claims were made at much the same time as similar allegations in relation to a former ReChem incinerator plant at Bonnybridge in Scotland. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will no doubt recall the intense public and media interest in the Bonnybridge allegations and the Pontypool plant was placed under similar public scrutiny as a result of the allegations made about animal health. However, on investigating the Gwent farmer's complaints, the Government's veterinary service found no evidence to link the cattle problems with air pollution: instead, specific animal disease conditions were confirmed. The separate inquiry set up on Scotland by the then Secretary of State for Scotland came to similar conclusions.
Again, concerns have been expressed about the possible contamination of foodstuffs in the area. Environmental monitoring undertaken by Torfaen borough council in 1989 found higher-than-background levels of PCBs in some duck eggs and grass samples taken from the vicinity. The Welsh Office subsequently arranged further sampling. Apart from broadly confirming the borough council's findings in respect of the duck eggs—and low levels of PCB contamination in some carrots—no other foodstuffs were found to be contaminated with PCBs.
The elevated levels of PCBs in duck eggs were also found in only one location, near to the ReChem plant. The reason for that has not yet been established, but the matter is being investigated further via the comprehensive study of PCB levels in the Pontypool area which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has commissioned. I shall say more about the study in a moment.
There is one important point that I should perhaps make clear at this stage: it is not unusual to detect the presence of PCBs in environmental monitoring programmes. Although their manufacture has long ceased, PCBs are widely present in the United Kingdom environment. One of the key questions in relation to the Pontypool area is whether the PCB concentrations in the local environment are particularly unusual and a real cause for concern.
Let me return to the question of local concerns. There have also been fears of a really major incident at the site, possibly leading to widespread contamination and even a need for evacuation of the whole area. Such an incident has not arisen in the 18 years during which the plant has been operating. There have been some—mainly minor—incidents at the site, all of which have been fully investigated by the relevant authorities. None has been found to have posed a particular hazard to the local people. High standards are applied on site to protect the work force, with the operating procedures being overseen and reviewed at regular intervals by the HSE.

Mr. Ainger: On the question of the danger to the general public from the operations of the site itself rather than from emissions from the stack, will the Minister explain why refineries at Milford Haven that have not damaged their neighbours or forced evacuations still have the CIMAH regulations applied to them? Why cannot the CIMAH regulations apply to the ReChem plant?

Mr. Jones: I am confident that all the proper regulations are being applied to the ReChem site, and that all the proper regulatory authorities are involved and are fulfilling their function there.
There have been several references to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which concluded:
the evidence so far gathered about environmental pollution caused by the ReChem incinerator does not prove that the plant is a serious public health risk.
Among other things, the Committee recommended that information on discharges from prescribed processes—that is, operations that could cause pollution of the environment—should be made more readily available to the public. A system for that has been put into place by the Environmental Protection Act 1990, some of the key elements of which I have already described. The Act increases the public's right to environmental information via public registers, helping to ensure that the standards industry adopts are open to public scrutiny.
The Select Committee also recommended that HMIP should be enabled to attract and retain good-quality staff. Again, that has happened. The overall staffing complement of HMIP has increased to about 360 in 1992–93 compared with 212 in 1990. The HMIP staff complement in Wales has also been increased and I understand that more recruitment is planned. That additional staffing underlines the Government's commitment to the highest standards of environmental protection.
The university of East Anglia study by Professor Roberts is under way and it is expected that the study will be concluded by early next year.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans) pointed out that the timetable from now on is crucial. Can the Minister confirm that once the report is produced, it will be made public, that the licence will not be granted until after the report has been made public and that the decision whether there should be a public inquiry will be taken by the Government before the matter can be pre-empted by a later decision to grant a licence? It is vital, in the interests of open debate and accuracy of decision-making, that that should be the sequence of events.

Mr. Jones: My right hon. Friend has said that he will publicise the findings of the report, but that will probably occur early next year. They will not necessarily coincide with the new regulatory action under the EPA, but that will proceed in tandem with HMIP, and I am sure that all necessary points will be brought together under that study.
The call for a public inquiry is not new. There have been a number of calls for such an inquiry over the years. Most recently, the Welsh Office received from the hon. Member for Torfaen a petition signed by about 220 Pontypool residents calling for an end to traffic in toxic waste and for a public inquiry into ReChem's activities.
We believe that the need for any public or other form of inquiry or investigation can best be considered in the light of the current study's findings. At this stage, the


Government's view is that a public inquiry would serve no useful purpose. Without the information that the university of East Anglia survey is gathering, any public inquiry now would probably, almost certainly, only go over the same ground as that covered by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs in 1989–90. That would hardly be sensible. Nor, I suggest, would it be sensible to pursue the call by the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent for a further inquiry by the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs.
The Government are seeking to provide the facts via the most comprehensive research on PCB contamination ever commissioned in Wales. The university of East Anglia study must be completed first; then the need for any further studies can be considered properly and on the basis of scientific findings and conclusions.
Our policy towards the trade in waste is that the international movement of waste for disposal should be minimised and that all developed countries should become self-sufficient in the disposal of toxic waste. The Government are taking a leading role in persuading the international community to become self-sufficient in the handling of toxic waste by developing their own facilities.
We appreciate the local fears that have been expressed and we are keen to try to resolve them, so far as possible, via the university of East Anglia study. I give the assurance that we shall not hesitate to take any other action that might be considered appropriate in the light of the study to protect public health and the environment.

Mr. Ainger: I had to leave the Chamber momentarily and hope that I did not miss any important points made by the Minister about the transfrontier shipment regulations. I pointed out throughout my remarks that local authorities, at county and district level, and fire and police authorities were not being informed about the transportation of PCBs throughout the United Kingdom. Will the Minister address that issue?

Mr. Jones: I am afraid that, because of the constraints of time and my desire to allow other hon. Members to take part, I do not have the opportunity to dwell at length on that point. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Nigel Evans: This is an important debate. I shall speak briefly because other hon. Members wish to speak.
I regret the absence of the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). He was referred to as being an Opposition environment spokesman, but it would appear that he was sacked. I can understand why, given his hostility to Conservative Members who wanted to debate this important subject at length.

Mr. Ainger: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) claimed that my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) was sacked. That is not true, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley would like to withdraw that.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Member for Knowsley, North was not sacked, I shall withdraw my comment. According

to the Sunday Times, he was an environment spokesman for the Labour party and the hostility that he showed to our trying to debate the subject at length was regrettable.

Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) should not believe what he reads, not only in newspapers but other publications. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) is not here to defend himself, but he resigned from Labour's Front Bench. It should not be improper for somebody to resign on a point of principle.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has withdrawn the word "sacked" and has clarified the position.

Mr.Michael: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who is a Labour Front-Bench spokesman, may wish to clarify the position.

Mr. Michael: Further to those points of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point has been made clear, but it might be worth emphasising that when comments about the integrity of a Member are to be made it is normal for the Member to be informed by the Member who is about to make those comments. I am confident that that has not happened, but it may have been an oversight by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us have no more assertions one way or the other. It has been a long day for everybody. Let us return to the motion, please.

Mr. Evans: If the hon. Gentleman resigned, I withdraw my allegation that he had been sacked. I am more than happy to do so.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said that we should be more concerned about granting planning applications for chimney stacks and other things in residential areas. I absolutely agree with him. I believe that we have moved on in the past 20 years, and more thought is given to the siting of hospital stacks, factories and industrial units. I have complained about a chimney stack in my constituency and the local authority is monitoring its emissions.
The NIM BY factor must be addressed. We believe that hazardous toxic material must be incinerated, "but nowhere near me, please." ReChem has shown itself to be expert in the incineration of hazardous toxic waste.

Mr. Llew Smith: I ask the hon. Member a question that I posed to other hon. Members, but which remains unanswered. Would he welcome that expert firm, ReChem, to his constituency if it made a planning application?

Mr. Evans: I should be more than happy for ReChem to make an application to site one of its factories in my constituency, as long as it was in an appropriate place, which relates to what I said about planning permission being given in the light of environmental concerns. ReChem is a responsible firm with a good record on the incineration of hazardous toxic materials.
Much mention has been made of the need to get other European countries to dispose of their hazardous waste themselves. The Prime Minister, as President of the European Community, should try to encourage more


countries to do so. ReChem is consulting Italian companies to see what progress can be made. That deserves congratulation.
Obviously, there is much fear and ignorance, and this sort of issue catches the headlines. When I was living in Wales I used to watch HTV. It regularly broadcast people living near the ReChem plant making representations. They were worried for their safety and about the stories that they heard about ReChem.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on his success in getting this debated in the Chamber today. It is useful that we are debating the matter.
As the hon. Gentleman said, this is not a new issue. It has been debated previously. An inquiry is under way and will be concluded in January 1993. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, we should wait for the report before any decision is taken about a public inquiry. Indeed, we have already had two interim reports. Moreover, it has always been said that if there were any cause for concern about the health and safety of people working in the plant or living near to it, a public inquiry would be held immediately. The Minister has not ruled out the possibility of a public inquiry, but we need to wait for the full report in January. Assurances have been given that we shall see what is said in the report and that a decision will then be made.
It is a strength rather than a weakness of the system that Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution is constantly monitoring ReChem and has been in consultation with the plant, and that £2·5 million is being invested there to ensure that the incineration will meet the standards enforced by the Government.
Most of the points that should be raised have been raised. As others wish to speak I shall conclude by saying that I look forward to the report. I ask hon. Members not to use this as an opportunity to scare people who live around the plant. The safety record of ReChem to date has given no cause for concern. The constant monitoring by HMIP and the self-monitoring by ReChem—it has spent more than £ 1 million on that—should reassure us that there are no problems at the factory in Torfaen and that we should await the report in 1993.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: First, I shall respond to a question asked by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) from a sedentary position when I intervened earlier. He asked whether I worked for ReChem. As the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) knows, I do not work for ReChem. I must confess, however, that I worked for and was for many years a colleague of the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Mr. Leo Abse. In those circumstances, I well understand all the local anxieties that have been raised over many years about the operation of this particular plant.
There is a difficulty in that there have been many stories. First, there was the story about sheep being paralysed and falling over in fields. A Fleet street newspaper described it as "Mystery at Bullmore Farm".

Upon investigation, no evidence was forthcoming to show that that had anything to do with the ReChem plant. Subsequently, great concern was generated by a story in New Society, claiming that the children of Pontypool should be described as the Cyclops children because of the number born with sight defects as a result of what was claimed to be pollution from the plant. Again, there has been no evidence for that.
I endorse many of the observations made in an articulate speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans). He made it clear that he was concerned on behalf of his electors, as I am on behalf of the electors of Brecon and Radnor which borders his constituency and is not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for Torfaen. We shall look at the Roberts report when it becomes available and will want to be reassured by it.

Mr. Roy Thomason: In the limited time available, I want to make three points, if I can.
First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on his presentation. He has done the duty of all of us, as representatives of our constituents, in speaking out on their behalf. We must all do that, but the House must take a wider view. It has to consider the interests of the country as a whole, the opportunities that may be available and the difficulties that may face the country as a whole.
Wales is a net exporter of waste. Wales was doing what Opposition Members—

It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — Private Members' Bills

TATTOOING (INSURANCE COVER) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Not moved.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 75 (Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

EUROPEAN UNION (PUBLIC INFORMATION) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Hon. Members: Object.

Second Reading deferred till Friday 23 October.

Orders of the Day — South Birmingham Health Authority

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Mr. Richard Burden: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate a matter that is of great importance to my constituents in Northfield and to the people of South Birmingham as a whole.
The issue could hardly be more fundamental. It concerns the future of health services for the people of Birmingham as a whole. The present South Birmingham health authority was formed in 1991 as a merger of the old Central health authority and the old South Birmingham health authority. It covers about half the city and a population of more than 400,000.
Unfortunately, controversy over plans for health services in Birmingham has not been uncommon in recent years. In 1989, the regional health authority adopted a major hospital building programme for the city. It would have involved, and still plans to involve, the closure of about 20 hospitals and the centralisation of hospital services on about four mega-hospital sites. The cost is in the region of £500 million. The plan is called Building a Healthy Birmingham. It has been highly unpopular from the outset, for it involves closure of the general hospital. If that went ahead, Birmingham city centre would be left without a major general hospital. A campaign against its closure has been mounted by a local newspaper, the Birmingham Evening Mail. The campaign is supported by the city council.
In the South Birmingham area, the plan involves the concentration of hospital facilities on a new mega-hospital site, the current Queen Elizabeth hospital campus. If the plan went ahead, the new hospital would be inaccessible to many South Birmingham residents and would involve the downgrading of Selly Oak hospital. the main district general hospital to the south of the city.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that women would be particularly adversely affected by those changes, as they would bring the closure of both the women's hospital and the Sorrento maternity hospital? The reasons for closing the Sorrento are called into question in a recent Select Committee report on maternity services—to which we still await a response from the Secretary of State for Health. However, she appeared to welcome that report in her recent speech on "Health of the Nation".

Mr. Burden: One problem with the Building a Healthy Birmingham plan is not the proposals it contains but the project that it might delay. Although it is surrounded by controversy, a number of changes ought to be made—such as the early renovation and rebuilding of the children's hospital and the renovation of the elderly services M block at Selly Oak hospital—which was condemned as long ago as 1987.
Perhaps the biggest objection is the plan's lack of accountability. Decisions originated behind closed doors and consultation—in so far as it took place at all—was cursory. When the health authority seemed to respond to consultations on points made by the people of Birmingham, any changes made were reversed a few months' later.
In the midst of all that, we are told that South Birmingham health authority is facing a major financial crisis. Precise information is difficult to obtain, but according to the latest RHA figures that I have, it is dealing with an inherited deficit of £4 million and a recurring deficit of £6·5 million a year.
Decisions appear to be handed down from on high, little information is given to the public, and major question marks remain over the financial and managerial competence of West Midlands regional health authority, headed by Sir James Ackers. The first news of that crisis filtered out in early March.
We know that £15 million was given to South Birmingham health authority to see it through its initial problems. The form that money took is still the subject of debate. The RHA is clear that that £15 million was a loan, made with the Government's knowledge. When I raised the issue with the Under-Secretary of State for Health, he replied in a written answer on 22 May that RHAs have no powers to grant loans to district health authorities. We have no clear answer to what that £15 million was all about. I hope that we will receive one today.

Dr. Lynne Jones: In a letter to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Dame J. Knight), the Minister for Health stated that the £15 million was a loan. There seems to be some confusion in the Department.

Mr. Burden: I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity to clear up that controversy today.
A report on the financial crisis facing South Birmingham health authority was commissioned from KPMG Peat Marwick, but it has not yet been made available to Members of Parliament or to the people of Birmingham. In advance of that happening. they are asked to accept hospital closures. The royal orthopaedic hospital at "The Woodlands" and at its other site in Broad street is scheduled for closure, and so is Birmingham accident hospital in the city centre. Both services are to be transferred to the general hospital which, according to the RHA's plan, is itself marked for closure in a few years' time.
There are question marks over the financial wisdom of those plans. More than £2 million has been spent on the accident hospital in recent years, to see it through the next decade. We do not know what will happen to that money. In the case of "The Woodlands", thousands of pounds have been raised by the people of Birmingham to provide a magnetic resonance imaging scanner. It would cost £250,000 to move that installation to the general hospital.
Consultants have questioned the clinical wisdom of the plans. They think that inadequate theatre provision at the general hospital development will undermine services. They warn of cross-infection, and that regional specialties also will be undermined.
The plans have been questioned by health service professionals. They are also deeply unpopular with the people of Birmingham, who are afraid that, as with the Building a Healthy Birmingham plan as a whole, they will he faced with decisions handed down from on high and will not be listened to. The evidence is already there. Even though the hospital closure plans are, we are told, only at the proposal stage, bed closures are already being called for by hospital managers, over 400 jobs are due to be lost from the acute sector in one year, beds will close in the royal orthopaedic hospital and managers are telling staff


that there will be an increased throughput of private patients to boost income. What clearer example could there be of the effect of the Government's health reforms? Beds are closing and private patients are increasing. Why is it that the Government always deny what the Opposition have said all the way through—that the health service reforms are a way to bring creeping privatisation into the health service?
Outside the acute sector, there is also a major impact on care. Services to the elderly and the mentally ill are both affected by the financial crisis. In the children's sector, the cottage unit that provides much-needed respite care for the families of sick children is scheduled for closure two clays a week as a result of the financial crisis. The fear is that, once again, the changes that people in Birmingham want to see will have to take second place to the financial stringencies being imposed from on high by the regional health authority. In other words, the renovation of my block at Selly Oak will he put back once again and people will have to wait still further and longer for the children's hospital to be rebuilt.
Perhaps the worst thing of all is that the South Birmingham health authority, while making these changes, does not seem to know what the impact of them will he. I quote from a financial strategy for 1992 published a month ago which says:
It will he necessary for the Authority as purchaser to make a judgment in due course about the impact of the proposals on service to the resident population.
Here we have a plan to close hospitals and to shift services around before the health authority even begins to know what the effect on patients will be.
We should not be forced to accept this and I have four proposals to make. First, the people of Birmingham have put up with this kind of thing for quite long enough. On Tuesday of this week, the Birmingham city council called for a full inquiry into the way that the West Midlands regional health authority is being run. I endorse that call and I hope that the Minister will give it his blessing as well. That inquiry should be independent, and it should look in detailed and broad terms at the way that West Midlands regional health authority is being run.
We have seen a catalogue of disasters through the Build a Healthy Birmingham plan in all its incarnations over the past few years to the privatisation of the regional health authority's management services division, QA Business Services. When it was run by the region, it made a profit but after privatisation, it went bust within 18 months. Surely it is time for a proper look at what is going on in the health authority.
Secondly, I should like the Minister to confirm that he agrees that the hospital closures and other proposed cuts should not go ahead until all the facts of the financial crisis in Birmingham are made publicly available. That should include publication of the KCMG Peat Marwick report into the financial crisis. When those facts are made fully available, there should be time for real consultation to take place. We do not want the panic response that we have seen already from health service managers.
Thirdly, the full facts of the loan-if indeed it was a loan—given to South Birmingham health authority in February or March this year should be made available. People in Birmingham have a right to know how that £15 million came to be given, and what the terms of repayment, if any, there are.
Fourthly, will the Minister accept that the South Birmingham health authority example is the most clear proof that there could be of where the Government's approach to health care is leading us? It is to an accountant's paradise where those who suffer are all too often the patients and the staff. That is the kind of health service in which power is increasingly centralised, decisions are made behind closed doors and ordinary people—the people for whom the health service was set up -are excluded from real decision-making.
I ask the Minister to accept that there must be a review of what is happening. Surely health authorities must be made more accountable to the public whom they are supposed to serve, and surely the hon. Gentleman will accept that, in the case of Birmingham, no amount of accounting wizardry, leading only to deficit, further deficit and financial crisis, can remove the need to put right the chronic underfunding which has existed for many years in the Birmingham health service. That has to be put right if the people of Birmingham are to receive the standard of health care that they deserve in the acute sector, the community sector and other sectors.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): I congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) on securing a debate on this important issue. I am glad to have the opportunity to respond to his remarks about the financial situation of South Birmingham health authority, although I am not surprised that he has concentrated his attention on the financial difficulties that the authority faces rather than on its considerable achievements. Those difficulties should be put in context.
In 1991–92, the allocation made to the new South Birmingham health authority increased by 10·5 per cent. in 1991–92 and by a further 9 per cent. in 1992–93. Both those increases are above the prevailing rate of inflation and, together with the commitment of the authority's staff, they have allowed the district to deliver continually improving services to the people of South Birmingham.

Dr. Lynne Jones: If there has been such an increase in expenditure, surely the Minister will share our concern at the effect of budgets on services. The chair of the health authority assured the people of Birmingham in May that the crisis would not cause any diminution in services. Yet there has been a ban on new psychology referrals, physiotherapy classes at the accident hospital have been closed, there have been ward closures, and mental health and dental health services have been reduced. Residents from a geriatric hospital have been moved to another geriatric hospital instead of to the purpose-built nursing home to which it was intended that they should go.
Surely the Minister appreciates the concern in Birmingham over the financial mismanagement that has led to all that, and the fact that we still do not know what caused it. We want to get to the bottom of the affair, and I support the demand by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) for an inquiry.

Mr. Sackville: I can tell the hon. Lady only that the allocations to South Birmingham have been considerable compared with those to other districts. She will know that activity levels of treatment and operations have continued on an upward trend—in recent years there has been an


increase of about 17 per cent. for in-patients and of about 65 per cent. for day cases. Waiting lists in the region as a whole have continued to fall. In terms of the money allocated to the district that is a good record.
There has also been considerable capital investment in the district and much more is planned over the next decade, as has already been said. The Building a Healthy Birmingham strategy, which will cost about £500 million over 10 years, includes a number of major projects in the district centred on the Queen Elizabeth and Selly Oak hospitals. The benefits are already apparent. In 1991 a new cardiac unit was opened at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, costing £2 million, and early this year the Queen Elizabeth psychiatric hospital, which cost £13 million, received its first patients.
There have also been a number of developments in the community sector. The new Greet health centre was opened in February 1992. It was built and equipped at a cost of £ 1 million. The centre, with all its modern facilities, will provide for the specific needs of the local community. There has been a complete refurbishment of the Yardley Wood health centre, which now provides modern community health facilities for its 10,500 patients.
Despite these achievements and the record level of funding, it is well known that South Birmingham has had serious financial difficulties. For the benefit of hon. Members, and to dispel some of the misconceptions surrounding the situation in South Birmingham, I shall outline the problem and the action that has been taken to resolve it.
South Birmingham overspent its budget in 1990–91, and this led to unacceptable delays in paying suppliers' bills. Unfortunately, due to problems in the production of the authority's accounts and some failings in financial reporting, the extent of the overspend was not recognised until very late. As a result, the authority found itself well into the 1991–92 financial year faced with the legacy of the previous year's overspending and continuing overspending in the current year. Various figures have been quoted about the size of the financial problem. It is now clear that at the end of 1991–92 the district was faced with a cumulative deficit of £10·5 million and a continuing overspend of £5·4 million.
With a deficit of that size discovered late in the year, it would have been entirely unrealistic to expect the authority to identify and institute savings measures to balance the budget immediately. That would have required emergency reductions in the services which is exactly what we have sought to avoid, and severe delays in payments to suppliers. To avoid that, the regional health authority made a temporary addition to the district's cash limit. In health authority jargon, that is known as brokerage. It was sufficient to allow the authority to maintain services and to pay bills on time. The arrangement was in line with accepted NHS practice whereby surplus funds in one authority are effectively transferred to another that has cash-flow problems so as to make the best use of the total resources available to the NHS. The transaction is reversed later.
In respect of South Birmingham and, indeed, other authorities where similar transfers took place, the arrangement was open and above board. The arrangement

did not resolve the underlying problem as it was designed only to give the district time to identify the root cause of the difficulty and to determine a strategy to remove it.
At the same time, the RHA commissioned two reports, the first to be produced by the independent firm of accountants, KPMG Peat Marwick, to review the factors that had created the problems and the deficiencies in financial management and reporting that had delayed senior management action.
The second report was to be produced by the DHA. It was called upon to produce a strategy for delivering a more efficient pattern of services that would allow the authority to restore a financially balanced position.
The KPMG Peat Marwick report will be considered by the RHA on 16 July, It was commissioned by the RHA and it will decide whether it should be made public. It is a management document which goes into considerable technical detail and I am grateful for the opportunity to outline the main conclusions and some of the action that has already been taken in response to them by the district and regional health authorities.
The South Birmingham health authority was created on 1 April 1991 from the merger of the former South and Central Birmingham health authorities. Both former districts had experienced financial difficulties in recent years, with which the respective authorities had been grappling. It is clear from the KPMG report that more attention should have been paid to managing the merger and ensuring that both authorities had in place proper procedures to integrate their systems. This has been recognised by the region and it is being taken into account in considering proposed future mergers.
The merger only exacerbated a problem that was already there. The report points to weaknesses in financial reporting and monitoring in South Birmingham which led to the district running a deficit for some time. That had resulted in the full extent of the problem not being recognised until late in the year. The report stresses the importance of authorities planning for a balanced financial position without having to resort to short-term measures, and having in place systems to monitor that.
Hon. Members may recall that in recent years the NHS management executive has made it a priority of health authorities to eliminate underlying financial deficits. An authority cannot run from year to year living beyond its means. Sooner or later the problem will become unmanageable and the authority will be faced with short-term cuts or ceasing to pay bills. It is far better to plan for a balance and to monitor carefully so that potential overspends can be identified and the authority can respond quickly.

Dr. Lynne Jones: If that has not been the case in the past—and it has been identified as a problem—does not that demonstrate mismanagement in South Birmingham health authority? Is there to be any accountability for that mismanagement?

Mr. Sackville: The Government have made it clear that from a technical point of view the merger was badly managed in terms of computer systems and accounting. If the hon. Lady is asking for heads to roll that is another matter. We have no evidence of any necessity for that.
There have been attempts to blame the financial problems—and we heard some more today—of South Birmingham on the reforms. That is preposterous. The


KPMG report shows that within the district there was a failure to appreciate the complexities of the new NHS financial management regime, but that represents a management failing, not a failure of the reforms. Throughout the country hospitals and health authorities have grasped the opportunities presented by the new system without any loss of basic financial control. The problems in South Brimingham, unfortunate as they are, would have had to be faced regardless of the reforms.
In terms of the future, the main issue of concern for the people of Birmingham is what caused the problem and what impact the recovery plan will have on their hospitals and the quality of service that they have come to expect. Perhaps I can reassure hon. Members. A plan for resolving the problems in South Birmingham was put to the authority and agreed by it on 17 June. The breathing space given by the short-term financial support last year allowed the authority to produce a considered plan which, although stimulated by the overspending problem. is designed to bring real long-term benefits to the people of South Birmingham and is consistent with the Building a Healthy Birmingham strategy.

Dr. Lynne Jones: The Minister will appreciate that these matters are of great significance to the people of Birmingham. Does he think that the plan to close the accident hospital by the early part of 1993 and to transfer services to the general hospital, which the health authority says will require the spending of £6·5 million to facilitate the transfer, is feasible? Is not it yet another example of mismanagement and lack of planning foresight? Because of the loss of planned beds there is a real fear in Birmingham that in the event of a major incident such as the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings or a major coach or car crash, there would not he sufficient accident places to admit the victims.

Mr. Sackville: I remind the hon. Lady that we are discussing the bringing forward of long-term plans which will take all those factors into account. As she knows, the plan centres on removing the significant duplication of services between the five major hospitals in the district—Selly Oak, Queen Elizabeth, Birmingham general, the royal orthopaedic and Birmingham accident.
In that way, it is proposed that the overspending will be

removed not by cutting services but by removing the costs of duplication and providing services more efficiently in the short and long term. It proposes that services currently provided by the royal orthopaedic and Birmingham accident hospitals will be transferred to the general hospital and that most of the acute medicine and general surgery provided by the general hospital should move to Selly Oak and the Queen Elizabeth. That will offer benefits by bringing together divided specialties under one roof and in premises that are more suitable and less expensive to run and maintain. The key message for the people of Birmingham is that there is no intention to reduce services in either quality or quantity—the plan proposes to close buildings, not services.
Anyone who knows Birmingham's hospitals will agree that it is high time for the excellent services that they provide to be housed in an estate of the best modern standards, located in the right places to meet the needs of today's populations. The health service cannot go on performing heroics in Victorian buildings scattered across cities, especially when those buildings are in a patchy physical condition and expensive to run.
Unfortunately, as with most plans involving the rationalisation of services, that will result in the closure of some much-loved local hospitals. However, it is well known that many of the existing, single specialty hospitals in Birmingham are old and expensive to run. Many are also at the end of their useful life in relation to providing modern health care. All proposals to build new hospitals or close existing ones will be carefully considered within the Department of Health before approval is given and that will take into account the outcome of local consultation on individual proposals. I understand that formal consultation on the proposals to close the Birmingham accident hospital and the royal orthopaedic hospital has now begun. The health authority will consider the comments at the next meeting on 21 October.

The motion having been made after half pastTwo o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock.